Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o 'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir Herbert Geraint Williams, Baronet, Member for Croydon, East, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Baronet.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

BEIT TRUST BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Amendments made to the Bill.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

PRIVATE BILLS

Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended until the Summer Adjournment:

As regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments to be considered at the next Sitting of the House after the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords. When Amendments thereto are intended to be proposed by the Promoters, a copy of such Amendments to be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and Notice thereof given not later than the day before that on which the Amendments made by the House of Lords are proposed to be taken into consideration.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MATERIALS (TRADING LOSS)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as representing the Minister of Materials, what loss has been incurred by the trading operations of the Ministry of Materials, from the date of its inauguration during 1951, to the latest convenient date.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The trading loss up to 31st March last was approximately £55 million.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is the end of the story of these dismal and improvident losses or are there further terminal losses yet to be incurred? May I also ask him to give the House an assurance that there will be no further adventures of this kind in State trading in commodities?

Mr. Amory: As far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, this provides for the situation until 31st March last. There may well be some further loss resulting from the terminal clearing up. As regards the second part of the question, I think we should let the future unfold.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is improper for the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to make this attack upon State trading without asking questions which would reveal that State trading makes a profit? For instance, is it not true that the Ministry of Food is making a quarter of a million pounds a week profit from selling Danish bacon?

Mr. Amory: I do not think I will say anything which would result in my hon. Friend asking still more questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING ACTIONS (FREE LEGAL AID)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Attorney-General whether he is now in a position to give information concerning the Government's proposals to extend the Free Legal Aid Scheme to cover cases arising from actions taken under the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill; and whether he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: As there are many poor people, particularly old-age pensioners, who still find great difficulty in getting legal assistance, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least promise to help them to get legal aid so that they can contest the provisions of the pernicious Housing Repairs and Rents Bill?

The Attorney-General: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this point is very much in mind.

Mr. Lewis: But will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something?

The Attorney-General: I should like to see this service given as much as the hon. Member would but, as he knows, it is only one of many services for which money is being pressed for at the moment, and the question of priority has to be considered.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Does the Attorney-General's original answer mean that the Government have decided not to introduce the Free Legal Aid Scheme in time to benefit the thousands of poor persons who want advice about the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill?

The Attorney-General: My answer meant what it said, No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — FATHER INGRAM (NEWSPAPER COMMENTS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Attorney-General if he is aware that, before the expiration of the necessary time for appeal in the case of the sentenced Father Ingram, the "Sunday Pictorial" and the "Daily Mirror" passed adverse comment and opinions concerning Father Ingram, on matters not mentioned in the trial; and, as this will prejudice this man's appeal, what action he proposes to take.

The Attorney-General: I have considered the newspaper articles referred to in the hon. Member's Question. On the information at present available to me I do not propose to take any action.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Government and the Attorney-General for that reply, and appreciating that the newspapers originally did a public service, may I ask whether, though the Attorney-General may not be able to take legal action against them, newspapers should not be advised not to pass adverse comment and attack individuals pending the time of their appeal, so as to allow people proper opportunity to go through the Court of Appeal?

The Attorney-General: This is a matter on which the House can express its own view without any assistance from


me. I was dealing only with the legal aspect of the matter, and at the moment I am not in a position to take any action.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH COMPANIES (REAL ESTATE OWNERSHIP)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General what further action he proposes to take arising from a recent judgment that companies registered in Eire cannot legally own real estate in Great Britain without a licence from the Crown.

The Attorney-General: The implications of this judgment are being studied. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Attorney-General aware that when the Crown takes over all the properties in Brixton and elsewhere which are illegally owned by these Irish companies, it will go a long way towards smashing the Eire property racket, operated in the name of D. Brady? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 16th June occupiers of these properties are no longer liable for any payment whatever to these Irish companies?

The Attorney-General: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must himself give them advice if he thinks that desirable. I am waiting until I have had a full study of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Night Shift Workers (Payment of Benefits)

Mr. W. Wells: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will make arrangements with the British Transport Commission to ensure that his Department's selection of the excluded day for purposes of National Insurance benefit shall coincide with the British Transport Commission's calculation of the first day on which the employee was absent from work.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): I assume that the hon. Member has night shift workers in mind. I am satisfied that the

present regulations governing the payment of National Insurance benefits to such workers are fair and reasonable. In any case, it would not be practicable to make different arrangements for different industries.

Mr. Wells: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the consequence of that answer is that in a number of cases, including one from my own constituency of which I have sent him particulars, a worker must go two days without either pay or benefit? Would it not be appropriate that employers, particularly in nationalised industry, should be asked to follow the Ministry's own simple rule that the last day on which a man or woman works should be the day in respect of which he or she receives pay?

Mr. Peake: I am glad that the hon. Member accepts that it would be impracticable for me to alter my practice in order to adapt my regulations to conditions in a particular industry. Conditions in a particular industry are not matters for me, but should be settled by the parties directly concerned.

Old-Age Pensioners

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that, since decontrol of meat, prices have risen to such a high degree as to make choice cuts of meat beyond the purchasing power of old-age pensioners; and whether he will, therefore, increase old-age pensions to compensate them for this loss in the purchasing value of their pensions.

Mr. Peake: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: That is the reply which I expected. The right hon. Gentleman seems quite oblivious of the sufferings of old-age pensioners, particularly with regard to the rapid and excessive rise in the price of meat. Is he aware that this rise means that old-age pensioners cannot afford to buy any decent cuts of meat? Surely the right hon. Gentleman could do something for these old people before the further increases in prices which are expected later this year.

Mr. Peake: I am told that the cheaper cuts of meat—

Mr. Lewis: Scrags.

Mr. Peake: —on which some of the old-age pensioners rely has gone down in price since derationing.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on what dates since 1947 increases have been made in the basic rate of pensions paid to old-age pensioners; on what dates since 1947 increases have been made in the maximum scales of National Assistance; and to what extent his Department are making known to retirement pensioners the facilities and grants provided by the National Assistance Board.

Mr. Peake: The basic rate of retirement pension was increased for certain pensioners in September, 1951. In September, 1952, an increase was made for all retirement pensioners. The scales of assistance were increased in July, 1948, when the National Assistance scheme was introduced, and again in June, 1950, September, 1951, and June, 1952.
As regards the last part of the Question, the pension order book gives information about National Assistance and explanatory leaflets and application forms are readily available at local offices of my Ministry, in post offices and elsewhere.

Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend think that the information in the first part of the answer is generally known to the public, including the editors of most newspapers? Could he also tell us in what circumstances his officers are authorised to advise pensioners to apply to the National Assistance Board if it is apparent that their means would entitle them to assistance?

Mr. Peake: I can only say that anybody who appears to be entitled to assistance is advised to apply for it. The trouble is much more reluctance to apply for assistance than ignorance of the facilities which exist.

Mr. W. R. Williams: In view of the obvious reluctance on the part of a large number of very deserving old-age pensioners to apply for assistance from the National Assistance Board, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, during the Recess, whether a change in title from National Assistance Board to something which is less suggestive of assistance might be worth while, so as to remove from these old people doubts about making an application?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. As I have said before, it would be a mistake to forfeit the large amount of good will which has been built up by the National Assistance Board.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) the number of old-age pensioners in receipt of supplementation from the National Assistance Board in June, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1953 and 1954, respectively;
(2) the average weekly rate of supplementation received by old-age pensioners during the years 1948, 1950, 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) the number of old-age pensioners in Wales, and the number in receipt of supplementation from the National Assistance Board for July, 1948, and the month of June in 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954;
(2) the average weekly rate of supplementation to old-age pensioners in Wales for the years 1948 to 1953 inclusive, and the latest convenient week in 1954.

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) the number of retirement pensioners in Scotland receiving a supplementary allowance from the National Assistance Board in June, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively;
(2) the average weekly rate of supplementation received from the National Assistance Board by retirement pensioners during the years 1948 to 1954, inclusive.

Mr. Peake: As the replies contain a number of figures, I am arranging to circulate them in a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Is it right that the Minister should say he will answer en bloc all Questions that entail a column of figures when those Questions deal with different subjects? The Questions asked by my hon. Friends deal with England and Wales, but my Question deals specifically with Scotland and an entirely different set of figures. I do not think it is fair for the Minister to give an answer of that kind.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order. The Minister said that he would publish a table of figures which included the answer to the Question of the hon. Member and I see nothing wrong with that.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS


—
Number in Payment (thousands)
Average Weekly Rate


Great Britain
Scotland
Wales
Great Britain
Wales


To Old-Age Pensioner Households
To Retirement Pensioner Households
To Old-Age Pensioner Households
Old-Age Pensioner Households
Retirement Pensioner Households
Old-Age Pensioner Households


1948
…
…
510
28
35
Not available


1949
…
…
621
38
45








s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


1950
…
…
700
45
51
11
8
11
5
11
2


1951
…
…
831
55
59
11
10
11
1
11
1


1952
…
…
927
61
67
14
9
14
1
14
5


1953
…
…
1,051
70
74
14
11
14
3
14
9


1954
…
…
1,131
77
78
Not yet available


Note


(1) "Old-Age Pensioner" includes retirement pensioner and non-contributory old age pensioner


(2) The number national assistance grants in payment is for a date in July, 1948, and for a date in June in later years.


(3) The average weekly rate of National Assistance grant is an estimate based on a sample taken in the Autumn of each year


(4) The number of old-age pensioners in wales in each year was about 250,000.

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) how many old-age pensioners in Liverpool are receiving supplementary grants from the National Assistance Board to the latest date;
(2) how many old-age pensioners in Liverpool are receiving contributory pensions and how many are receiving noncontributory pensions to the latest date.

Mr. Peake: The number of retirement pensioners in Liverpool is not known. The National Assistance Board tell me that many of their Liverpool offices cover areas outside the city. They estimate, however, that at the end of June there were in the city about 3,650 non-contributory pensioners and about 18,000 cases in which assistance was supplementing retirement or non-contributory pensions. Some of the latter include the needs of more than one pensioner.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that the first part of the answer indicates that the National Assistance Board offices

Mr. Ross: It is an entirely different table of figures, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: That may be so, but the answer may include the figures for which the hon. Member asked.

Following are the figures:

must be fewer in number than they ought to be if they have to cover areas greater than that of Liverpool? Is he aware that it is surprising that he cannot give fuller information and that that indicates that the concern of National Assistance officers is such that they are not aware of the picture of the poverty of old-age pensioners which is being constantly brought to the notice of the Department in this House?

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member will recognise that the records of retirement pensioners are kept centrally at Newcastle and do not take account of municipal or constituency boundaries. There are four National Assistance offices inside the city of Liverpool and five offices outside it which deal with cases partly from inside the city and partly from outside.

Mr. Keenan: Will the Minister look at the matter again? Is he aware that these arrangements largely concern elderly people, that one office covers nearly two


constituencies and that considerable travelling distances are involved for those who have to attend at them?

Mr. Peake: I will certainly ask the Assistance Board to have a look at the matter.

Consolidating Regulations (Publication)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when the proposed pamphlet consolidating regulations governing contributions and benefits under the National Insurance and Family Allowances Acts will be available.

Mr. Peake: I have come to the conclusion that it would be advisable to defer publication for the time being.

Mr. Davies: Has the Minister finally made up his mind? Is he aware that over two years ago he informed me that he would publish such a comprehensive pamphlet, which would be most helpful not only to hon. Members but to the public generally? Is he aware that it is very difficult when one has to go through all the pamphlets to obtain relevant information?

Mr. Peake: I quite appreciate that a revised edition of the general guide would be useful, but in view of the changes which are now coming along I think that it would be better to postpone publication until those changes are made.

Mr. Davies: Would the Minister undertake that as soon as the changes take place he will speedily produce a comprehensive code?

Mr. Peake: I think I can give that undertaking.

War Pensioners (Comforts Allowance)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will take immediate steps, by a more generous interpretation of the comforts allowance, to compensate war pensioners of the 1914–18 war for disability and lack of mobility aggravated as a result of increasing age.

Mr. Peake: I am satisfied that the provisions laid down in the Royal Warrant

for the award of this allowance are interpreted generously. If the hon. Member has in mind any individual case I shall be happy to look into it if he will send me particulars.

Mr. Simmons: Does the Minister realise that I suggest this only as one of the reasons of dealing with this problem of the ageing war pensioners? Has he any alternative suggestions for securing that objective?

Mr. Peake: I know that the hon. Member was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry when this comforts allowance was first introduced. I should like to pay my tribute to the useful purpose which it has served; but I think we shall have to look for other and better ways of helping the larger number of pensioners whose cases I am considering, as I indicated in the debate on Wednesday of last week.

Limbless Ex-Service Men (Allowances)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, in view of the fact that, of the 23,740 limbless survivors of the 1914–18 war, only 2,156 are in receipt of any of the supplementary allowances, he will have a review of their position made with a view to alleviating their position as soon as possible.

Mr. Peake: We can, I think, be glad that the number of 1914 war limbless pensioners in the categories calling for supplementary allowances is comparatively few. I am satisfied that the conditions governing payment of these allowances are generously applied.

Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that it is a very small percentage of the total number of 1914–18 men who are receiving any supplementary assistance? Will he see that they are all receiving what they ought to be receiving?

Mr. Peake: On two occasions in recent years leaflets have been circulated to all pensioners to inquire whether they are quite sure that they are getting all the allowances to which they are entitled. I shall certainly consider a further circulation of that sort at the appropriate moment.

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will investigate the effect on the paired limb of wearing an artificial limb from the purely physical, rather than medical aspect, by means of an immediate and swift examination of 25 per cent. of 1914–18 limbless war pensioners.

Mr. Peake: As the hon. Member knows, about 4,500 limbless pensioners of the 1914 war have recently been examined in connection with the investigations of the Rock Carling Committee and I think we had better wait and see what that Committee reports before making up our minds on this point.

Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that we are concerned, not with the foibles of the medical profession, but with the facts about these aged limbless men? The suggestion in my Question does not mean a medical examination but an examination, say, by the welfare staff of the Department, to see what the physical effect of the wearing of an artificial limb is rather than the medical effect, which can mean anything according to the interpretation of the medical officer.

Mr. Peake: I am not quite sure what is the distinction the hon. Member draws between a medical and a physical effect, but I am sure that the investigation by the Rock Carling Committee will throw light on this point.

Mr. Simmons: The distinction which I draw is that medical men are concerned with medical terms and the physical condition is concerned with whether men are more quickly tired and more easily handicapped by advancing age because of the wearing of an artificial limb. That is a purely physical matter which can be determined by observation by sympathetic observers rather than by medical men, who are purely concerned with medical terms.

Mr. Peake: I trust that the hon. Member is not suggesting that medical men are not sympathetic.

Mr. G. Jeger: When does the Minister expect to receive the Report of the Rock Carling Committee?

Mr. Peake: There is another Question later about that.

National Assistance Allowances (Disregards)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will introduce legislation to increase the minimum scales of National Assistance allowances and disregards.

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to Section 6 of the National Assistance Act.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister reconsider that answer in the light of the closely reasoned, factual article that appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" last Friday? Does the Minister agree that the standard of these scales was fixed against one of the darkest backgrounds of British history? In view of rising productivity, does he not think that those who suffer through no fault of their own should have their standards improved?

Mr. Peake: Section 6 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, places fairly and squarely on the Board the duty from time to time of preparing and submitting to the Minister draft regulations covering the scale of assistance. The Board, on a number of occasions, has shown itself prepared to act under Section 6 without any prompting from me. Therefore, I think we should follow the course laid down by Parliament in 1948.

Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the disregards are the subject of examination by the Phillips Committee, bearing in mind that they are concerned with financial provision for the aged?

Mr. Peake: I am not aware that the Phillips Committee is considering disregards for National Assistance purposes.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend kindly ask the Phillips Committee to consider them? Is he aware that in my opinion it is most important that this aspect of provision for the aged, which involves thrift and saving, should be considered by the Phillips Committee?

Mr. Peake: All I said was that I was not aware that the Phillips Committee was considering the matter. I cannot say, however, that it is not considering this matter. It certainly is not for me to


dictate to that Committee what it should or should not consider within its terms of reference.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that the scales of National Assistance for two people are 5s. higher than for a contributory pensioner? The time is long overdue when he should have a look at that.

Married Persons (Pension Rate)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he has considered the desirability of granting the same old-age pension to each married person as to single persons, widows or widowers, or of reducing the difference between that paid to the former and to the latter.

Mr. Peake: Where a husband and wife are both insured they will each be granted a pension at the single person's rate. I see no reason for providing similar treatment where the wife relies on her husband's insurance.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware of the anomaly of two people living in two separate rooms, in the same household, or, indeed, actually cohabiting, each receiving a pension and, therefore, receiving an aggregate income, by pension, much larger than if they were married?

Mr. Peake: That may well be so, where each has been a contributor to the Insurance Fund.

Old People (Coal Supplies)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will consider making a winter-time allowance for old-age pensioners for the purchase of coal, beyond any increase that may be made in the pension.

Mr. Peake: I have no power to make such an allowance.

Mr. Sorensen: As the Minister has power to make an allowance for the purchase of tobacco, could be not secure power to make this very necessary grant?

Mr. Peake: No, I can assure the hon. Member that it is quite beyond my power to interfere in that way with the working of the National Assistance Board. There

used to be a special winter-time allowance for fuel which was abolished by general consent in 1944 because it was found to be unsatisfactory.

Mr. Bottomley: As old-age pensioners find it impossible to lay in stocks of coal during the summer, could not the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Fuel and Power to ensure that stocks are put aside especially for them?

Mr. Peake: That is not a question for me.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he has yet considered the comments of the National Council of Social Service in their recent report on the difficulties about the coal supplies of people over 70 years of age; and if he will discuss with the appropriate authorities before the winter the problems involved with a view to finding a solution.

Mr. Peake: I have not yet had an opportunity of examining this report which, I gather, was only published on 23rd July.

Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, by the time the House reassembles after the Recess, he will have studied this report? May I take it that then, as heating fuel of all kinds is most important to old people, he will, after he has read the report, consider the proposals which it makes and ensure that action is taken? If I put down a Question by the time we return, will my right hon. Friend have an answer for me?

Mr. Peake: I will certainly take an opportunity of reading this excellent report during the summer Recess—[An HON. MEMBER: "Excellent?"] I gathered from Press reports that it was well worthy of careful consideration—but I hope that I shall not come to a conclusion on it quite as quickly as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward).

Mr. Fenner Brockway: In view of the fact that some of these people will be limbless ex-Service men, could the Minister tell us when he hopes to have the report of the Rock Carling Committee?

Mr. Peake: I think I should be right in saying that I hope to receive this report before many months have gone by.

Widow's Benefits (Disregarded Earnings)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what decision has been reached on the question of increasing the amount that may be earned by a widow without this affecting the drawing of a full widow's pension.

Mr. Peake: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on 12th July, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister realise that that does not really alter the grievance that there are widows to whom it is a burden and an anomaly that they cannot earn more than a certain amount without affecting their pension; and that they might be encouraged to work more and longer if they had a better allowance in respect of earnings?

Mr. Peake: As the answer to which I referred made clear, this is one of the matters which I have referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Supplies, Slough

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will take steps to improve the supply of coal to Slough.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): If the hon. Member would let me have particulars of any supply difficulties, I will gladly make inquiries.

Mr. Brockway: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a two-month delay in deliveries in Slough; that delivery men are having to take up another job; that orders for summer supplies cannot be met; and what are to be the prospects for the winter?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am not aware of these facts. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I will gladly look into them.

Industrial Supplies

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent industry is obtaining coal below the cost of production.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The costs of production vary between different pits and coalfields but, taken as a whole, the prices charged by the National Coal Board for industrial and other coals are designed to cover the average costs of production.

Mr. Russell: Can my hon. Friend give us any idea, if necessary, in general terms, whether British industry is obtaining its coal cheaper than its foreign competitors are doing?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: No; I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that some pits are selling coal to industrial undertakings at actually below the cost of production?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should think that that is very likely, but it is not within the competence of the Ministry to inquire into the internal workings of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Logan: If industry can obtain coal at cost price, is it not possible to establish, in the centre of each of the great cities, a place where the poor and the pensioned can obtain coal at cost price?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was not within the power of the Minister to ascertain the facts that were put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Surely the Minister can ask questions of the Coal Board. Have we reached a stage when the Minister cannot even ask for information from the Coal Board?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My right hon. Friend can certainly ascertain the facts. I said that it was not within his competence to intervene in this matter.

Imports

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal has been imported since the end of the last coal winter to the latest convenient date; how much of these imports have been house-coal; how much more imported house-coal he expects to arrive before 31st December, 1954; and whether he is satisfied that all these imports when


added to indigenous supplies will be sufficient to avert a shortage during the forthcoming winter.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: A quarter of a million tons, all of which, apart from screening losses, represents a direct or indirect addition to house coal supplies. I cannot say how much more will arrive this year, but the object of the steps being taken by my right hon. Friend is to safeguard supplies for next winter.

Mr. Nabarro: Does that reply mean that the winter prospects for house coal are now a good deal brighter than when the rather guarded statement was made six weeks ago?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think that it is a matter of degree.

Price Increases (Protest)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what representations he has received protesting against the inequitable price increases applied to house coal, as compared with the then current prices for industrial coal at the time of the last increases in house coal prices; and what factors he had regard to when sanctioning the last house coal price increase in the spring of 1954.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: A protest was lodged by the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council. The basic factor in the price of a particular coal is its quality but the increases on 3rd May took account of other factors, including the relative scarcity of large coals. There was no discrimination against house coals for which the average price increases were about the same as those for comparable supplies to industrial and other consumers.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the complaint is now widespread from domestic consumers and their organisations that a disproportionately large amount was added to the cost of house coal, and that industrial coal did not so suffer? To allay these anxieties, will my hon. Friend undertake to publish a schedule of comparative statistics showing that the increases in the price of coal were, indeed, equitably distributed between industry and domestic consumers?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think I can reassure my hon. Friend, so long as he is

dealing with comparable coals. In the case of the main users of large coal the price for household coal was raised by 4s. 4d., for railways by 4s. 4½d. a ton and for coastal and trawler bunkers by 4s. 8d. a ton.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

Spanish Arms (Imports)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Spanish Government to his protest against the export of arms to Egypt by Spain.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the supply of arms to Egypt by Spain, and the representations which he has made to the Spanish Government on this subject.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): In response to representations on this subject by Her Majesty's Government, the Spanish Foreign Minister gave an assurance to Her Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid on 21st June that the Spanish Government had decided, in view of the present disturbed international situation, to prohibit the export from Spain of all arms and munitions unless destined for N.A.T.O. countries.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any arms have actually been sent by Spain to Egypt, and if so, as there are reports that they have been, does he not consider that the lifting of the ban on the export of arms to Spain was a mistake? Does it not show that every time a concession is made to Franco, he abuses the situation?

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be gratified by this assurance. So far as reports are concerned that munitions of war have been sent to Egypt, we recently received information that a large shipment of Spanish arms was about to be made, and the Ambassador has accordingly reminded the Spanish Foreign Minister of this assurance. So far, we have no information that this shipment has gone.

Mr. Jeger: While we are very pleased with the action taken and with the results that have been achieved, does it not show, by the tardiness of the action that has


been taken—Spain has said that in view of the disturbed relations at the moment she has banned this export of arms, but have not the disturbed relations been in existence for a long time; have not our men been killed in Egypt, possibly with some of these arms?—that Spain is most unreliable and untrustworthy as a friend or ally? Would not the hon. Gentleman make representations to our American friends on these lines?

Suez Canal (Neutral Zone)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will discuss with the Egyptian Government the establishment of a neutral zone in the Suez Canal area, in view of the Commonwealth support for this proposal.

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any such suggestion by any Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Teeling: Although this may not have been an official suggestion from Commonwealth Governments, is my hon. Friend aware that there was strong feeling in the Commonwealth that this solution, similar to that reached by the United States over Panama in 1903, might he a very useful one? Is he aware that if we had a separate nation there—a neutral nation, probably with an Arab prince as ruler—it would make for a much safer situation and command considerable support from the members of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Nutting: We can deal only with the views which have been expressed by Commonwealth Governments, and, as I have informed my hon. Friend, in this case no Commonwealth Government has made any such suggestion.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the methods whereby the United States obtained control over the Panama region have not always been universally admired, and that there are many hon. Members who would not wish Her Majesty's Government to adopt the same methods with Egypt?

Strategic Action (Commonwealth Consultation)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that the final passage of the statement on seeking the

direct agreement of Commonwealth Governments on occasions of the highest strategical importance, made by the Prime Minister on 8th May, 1946, remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 8th May, 1946, should be read as a whole. That statement continues to represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Maitland: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether that applies to the final part of the text and, therefore, whether we have sought and obtained direct agreement with the Commonwealth Governments before taking action in regard to the proposal now before Egypt to withdraw all our forces?

Mr. Eden: I think my hon. Friend has been informed that the Commonwealth Governments have been kept most fully and closely informed at every stage of these long negotiations, which have now extended over a period of years. That is our usual method of dealing with these matters. If any Commonwealth Government has any point it wishes to raise at any time it is fully within its power to do so; but it must speak for its policy. We cannot speak for its policy here.

MEDICAL FACILITIES, EUROPE (CONVENTION)

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the case of a British subject, Mrs. Mary Mason, who was recently compelled to return to the United Kingdom from Belgium in circumstances liable to endanger her health, owing to her inability to pay hospital charges in Belgium; if he is aware that the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance is intended to cover such cases and that the delay in ratifying it is causing similar hardships to other British subjects; and when Her Majesty's Government propose to ratify the convention.

Mr. Steward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will now ratify the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance.

Mr. Nutting: I have no information about Mrs. Mason's case, but will be glad to look into the matter if the right hon. Gentleman will supply me with the necessary particulars.
As regards ratification of the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance, the text was laid before Parliament as a White Paper on 1st July. It is the intention of the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention upon the expiry of the customary period.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the case to which I refer is that of a British subject who felt herself compelled to return to this country from Belgium in a state of health in which she was not fit to travel because she was being required to pay £6 a day in a Belgian hospital? In view of the great generosity shown to foreigners under our Health Service, does not the hon. Gentleman think that we ought to get some reciprocity at least from our allies in the Council of Europe and the signatories to the Brussels Treaty?

Mr. Nutting: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to reciprocity I must inform him that we can only ask that the Belgians, and other signatory Powers to the Convention to which I have referred, should provide for British subjects the same facilities which they provide for their own people. If they do not have a national health service such as we have, we cannot insist that such benefits should be provided.

Mr. Younger: Would it not be correct to say that all Western European countries make provision, at any rate for emergency medical attention, for people who have not the means to pay?

Mr. Nutting: I will look into the case which the right hon. Gentleman has sent to me. It is possible that Mrs. Mason's case may be covered by the Brussels Convention, but as that deals only with lawful residents in the country, and if she was a tourist, I doubt it.

SOUTH-EAST ASIAN SECURITY (STUDY GROUP)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the discussions of the Anglo-United States study

group on a South-East Asian security organisation have been discontinued.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what conclusion the Anglo-American study group on South-East Asian defence has arrived.

Mr. Eden: The report of the Anglo-American Study Group is confidential to Governments. I am not, therefore, able to make any statement upon its conclusions. The discussions were discontinued because the Study Group had completed its studies.

Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the members of the Study Group were in agreement and submitted an agreed report to their respective Governments? Can he further say whether, arising out of these discussions, Her Majesty's Government are planning to enter into any fresh commitments when the House is in Recess?

Mr. Eden: I can only say that we were satisfied with the result of the work of the Study Group, and that the commitments of Her Majesty's Government are those which have been already stated publicly in this House.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the Foreign Secretary at least say whether or not our American friends had a better understanding of what was meant by the Locarno Pact at the end of the activities of the Study Group than at the beginning?

Mr. Eden: I am confident that the growth of understanding was mutual.

GERMANY (DR. OTTO JOHN)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has concerning the disappearance in Berlin of Dr. Otto John, head of the German Office for Security of the German Constitution; and how far requests for diplomatic assistance have been made of the British representative in Germany by the German Federal Government.

Mr. Eden: Dr. Otto John left the hotel in West Berlin where he was staying on the evening of 20th July and went to the East Zone of Berlin. A statement purporting to have been recorded by him


on 20th July was broadcast by the East German wireless on the evening of 24th July. The full facts are still not established and, in particular, the circumstances in which the broadcast was made are unknown.
The German Federal authorities are in touch with the Allied High Commission on the question of an approach to the Soviet authorities.

Mr. Bellenger: As it is stated in certain quarters in Germany that the appointment of Dr. John was apparently made on the recommendation of the United Kingdom Government of that time, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any vestige of truth in that allegation?

Mr. Eden: The appointment was, and is, a matter for the German authority although all three Western allies were, naturally, consulted at the time of his appointment in 1950; and the three Western allies raised no objection in view of his excellent anti-Nazi record.

Mr. Bowles: Does the Foreign Secretary believe that there is any truth in the statement that Dr. John left West Germany because of the rise in power of the Nazis there now?

Mr. Eden: I find it impossible to comment on the information we have now got, and I should like to ask the House to show some restraint in this matter in these circumstances. A statement is being made this afternoon by the German Minister of the Interior, and in view of the responsibility which rests with him, I hope that the House will not wish to put any more questions until we hear what he has to say.

UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the satisfactory settlement at the Geneva Conference, Her Majesty's Government will now support the application of the People's Government of China for membership of the United Nations at the next General Assembly of the United Nations organisation.

Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's statement of 12th July, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not the fact that since then we have had the outcome of the Geneva conference'? Is it not a fact that on a number of occasions spokesmen for Her Majesty's Government have said that the outcome of the discussions at the conference about Indo-China would be the ultimate test of the suitability of China for membership of the United Nations? If Geneva is to be the test of the suitability of membership, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not China who comes out of the test in any unfavourable light?

Mr. Eden: It is true, fortunately, that there has been agreement reached at Geneva; and if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look at the statement of the Prime Minister he will see that that is covered, and so are some other points.

EUROPEAN SECURITY (SOVIET NOTE)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals have recently been received from the Soviet Government for further big Power talks.

Mr. Eden: As the House will be aware, on 24th July the Soviet Government addressed Notes to Her Majesty's Government and to the United States and French Governments, proposing a conference of all European States and the United States of America to consider the Soviet proposals put forward some months ago for collective security in Europe. It is also proposed that the Chinese People's Republic should send an observer to this conference.
Her Majesty's Government will wish to consult the United States and French Governments as well as the other interested Governments, including their partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, about the reply to be sent to the Soviet Note.

Mr. Attlee: In a matter of this kind, is it not most desirable that all the allies should consult together before sending a reply? Further, as this is a very long document, would it be the policy of Her Majesty's Government to examine it with great care to see whether there is in it any basis, or something new, on which there could be a "get together"? It


has been suggested that this Note is merely a repetition of Berlin, but I hope that the very closest examination will be made of it before it is turned down out of hand.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that that is why my answer is so reserved. We want to make the most careful examination of the Soviet proposals. I should prefer not to make any hasty judgment upon it, whatever conclusions may form themselves automatically when one reads some of the paragraphs. I assure the House that we shall consult all our colleagues, particularly the N.A.T.O. Powers, before a reply is sent.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House hope that he will be as successful in this instance as he was at Geneva?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Livestock (Slaughtering)

Mr. Boyle: asked the Minister of Food how many cattle, sheep, lambs and pigs were purchased for slaughter in the week ended 17th July.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): My Department can provide figures only of animals accepted for guarantee payments. The figures for the week ended 18th July are not yet complete, but the provisional figure of certifications in Great Britain for the week ended 11th July are 36,600 cattle, 148,100 sheep and lambs and 139,000 pigs.

Mr. Boyle: Can the hon. Gentleman say how this compares with the last week of control and purchase by the Ministry?

Dr. Hill: The appropriate week is the corresponding week last year. There is a very substantial increase over that week.

Cattle (Deficiency Payments)

Mr. Royle: asked the Minister of Food if he will state, to the latest possible date, the amount which is due for deficiency payments in respect of cattle.

Dr. Hill: About £119,000 up to 11th July, which is the latest date for which an estimate can be made.

Mr. Royle: Is that for two weeks?

Dr. Hill: It is to 11th July, which means one week.

North American Fruits

Commander Donaldson: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that continued refusal to restore the traditional imports into this country of North American apples and pears may lead to a readjustment of production which will deprive British consumers of this class of fruit for which, in the past, they have shown appreciation, and which provides an essential addition to the supplies available from home-grown sources; and when he anticipates it will be possible for him to indicate what policy will be followed in the forthcoming winter.

Dr. Hill: It is hoped that the fears of my hon. and gallant Friend will prove unfounded. Unfortunately there are many competitors for our limited dollar resources and it is not yet possible to anticipate the answer to the last part of the Question.

Commander Donaldson: Is my hon. Friend sympathetic towards the importation of fruits from Canada and the United States if dollars are available? There is a demand in the winter time by the public for such fruits and this will not be detrimental to fruit growing interests in Great Britain?

Dr. Hill: It is essentially a matter of dollar resources. My hon. and gallant Friend should address his Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that ample supplies of fruit are available not only from internal sources but also from Europe and Commonwealth countries, and that there is no need to waste dollars when we can get the goods elsewhere?

Dr. Hill: I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but the case for the importation of this fruit is that it arrives in the early months of the year when supplies of dessert fruit are not particularly good.

New Zealand and Danish Butter

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement regarding supplies of butter from New Zealand and Denmark.

Dr. Hill: The long-term contract for the purchase of butter from New Zealand, was originally due to expire on the 31st July, 1955, but will now be terminated, by mutual agreement, on the 31st July, 1954. The Danish contract is not due to expire until September, 1955, but discussions about the final year will take place shortly.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a good deal of criticism in New Zealand because his Department has been making a profit on New Zealand butter? Is not this most unfortunate? Will he do what he can to ensure that it does not affect future supplies?

Dr. Hill: The termination of the arrangement a year earlier than was originally intended is by mutual agreement between the New Zealand Commission and ourselves.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is that termination one of the reasons why the Ministry is now buying some ancient butter from the United States?

Dr. Hill: No, Sir. We have assured the New Zealand Commission that we shall not import butter from other than our normal suppliers except to the extent of the shortfall on New Zealand butter this year, which will be some 20,000 tons below the expected figure.

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman inform himself about New Zealand opinion?

Slaughterhouses

Mr. Wiley: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement about the future use of the Government-built slaughterhouses at Grimsby and Wimborne.

Dr. Hill: No decision has yet been reached. The question whether they should be purchased by the local authorities is still the subject of negotiation. In the meantime and as a temporary measure the Department is operating these premises as a public service.

Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary do what he can to expedite a settlement? I am sure he will agree that the sooner a settlement is reached the better.

Dr. Hill: We are very anxious to reach a settlement, and we hope to know one way or the other in the next few weeks.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food when he proposes to publish new model byelaws about slaughterhouses.

Dr. Hill: Within about three months.

MINISTER OF SUPPLY (U.S.A. VISIT)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement about the scope and outcome of his discussions with United States defence authorities during his recent visit.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Supply (1) what information we are supplied with by the United States on their development of guided missiles;
(2) what are the terms of the agreement with the United States of America with regard to guided missiles.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): My right hon. Friend proposes to make a statement on this subject later this week and I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will be willing to await that statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Private Houses (Subsidy)

Mr, G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the houses built for private ownership during 1953 received a subsidy.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): Of the 2,610 houses completed in Scotland in 1953 for private ownership, 295 qualified for financial assistance. All were for persons connected with agriculture.

French and Dutch Carrots

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that recent importations of French and Dutch carrots are making it impossible for Scottish carrot growers to sell their produce; and whether he will take action.

Mr. J. Stuart: My information does not bear out my hon. and gallant Friend's


contention. I understand that supplies of French carrots are no longer available in Scotland, and that supplies of Dutch carrots are very limited. Scottish carrots were selling at the same price as French supplies, but few Scottish carrots are as yet in the market.

Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it from that satisfactory reply that the position is now all right?

Mr. Stuart: It is all right now.

SEWERAGE SCHEME, LODDINGTON

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that parts of Loddington, Northamptonshire, are distinctly malodorous for lack of proper sewage disposal arrangements; and whether he will now authorise a starting date for the small scheme submitted in August, 1950, by the Kettering Rural District Council, which he has approved in principle.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): My right hon. Friend appreciates the need for this scheme, but he cannot authorise an early starting date. There are many other areas where the need is as great or greater.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend consider not necessarily an early starting date but some starting date? The village continues to smell worse every year.

Mr. Marples: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is sorry that there is a smell in the village, but I wrote to the hon. and learned Gentleman on 7th July saying that the scheme would be reviewed in a few months' time in connection with next year's programme.

SUB-POST OFFICE, AUCHTERHOUSE

Captain Duncan: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when a new sub-postmaster will be appointed at Auchterhouse, Angus, as the lack of one causes inconvenience to this scattered rural community, particularly pensioners.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): There is now a good prospect that a suitable candidate will be forthcoming and, if so, the sub-office will be reopened without delay. Meanwhile, special arrangements have been made for paying old-age pensions in the district.

ARMY TRAINING (CONSTRUCTIONAL WORK)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for War in how many cases in 1952 and 1953, respectively, Army units, as an exercise, constructed roads or bridges for local authorities; what was the mileage of roads and the number of bridges so constructed; and what means were taken in 1954 to inform local authorities of the constructional services available to them from Army units.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Royal Engineer units built for local authorities four bridges in 1952 and ten in 1953. They did no road construction for local authorities in these years. Only a few engineer units require training in this type of work and, in view of their other tasks, they are available only at a small number of times and places. No special approach to local authorities has therefore been made.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will name the estates on which roadwork is being done by the 117 Field Engineer Regiment, Territorial Army, in Aberdeenshire; and what payments are being made to his Department for the work being performed.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: The Glen Muick, Balmoral and Invercauld Estates. All materials are being supplied by the estates and there is no cost to the Army over and above normal training expenditure.

Mr. Thomson: In the light of that answer, will not the hon. Gentleman agree that private estates ought to make a proper payment for the labour of members of the Forces? In the light of the information in his answer to the previous Question, ought he not to ban the use of Army units for work on private estates which results in an increase in the value


of purely private property when there is so much work to be done on public roads and bridges?

Mr. Hutchison: I think the hon. Member is confused about the type of work being done. This was virtually only a track. The estates did not ask for the work to be done. It is very doubtful if it has improved the value of the estates at all. If the estates had been asked to pay for the work, it is very doubtful whether they would have given assent to the Army's doing it. The Army wanted training. This was an isolated area where there were no local authority roads anyhow and there was this track on which the Army could learn.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my hon. Friend agree that all reasonable people with knowledge of training would be most grateful for this opportunity?

Mr. G. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that there are many isolated farms which would welcome the opportunity of a well-laid track being provided, connecting the farm with the highway, and if I send him a list of some in the Goole area will he get some work done on them?

Mr. Hutchison: I have already said, in reply to a Question put to me last week, that if there are suitable units—and there are very few of them—and there are suitable tasks for them to do, and it provides useful training, we should be very glad to look into it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make on business?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. It may be convenient for the House to know that the proposed date of meeting after the Summer Recess will be Tuesday, 19th October.
Perhaps I might also state that on Wednesday, at the end of business, we shall ask the House to consider the Lords Amendments to the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle).

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to say definitely that, if any matter of the Bonn Agreement without E.D.C. were to come forward during the Recess, the House will be called together before any decision was come to?

Mr. Crookshank: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give me notice of that question. On the general issue about the recall of the House, I did say on Thursday that a Standing Order now provides for this to be done if necessary.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I have raised this matter before, and that I made a special point that it should be considered.

BRITISH AIRLINER, HAINAN (SHOOTING DOWN)

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the shooting down of a British aircraft off Hainan.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. On the morning of 23rd July, a passenger aircraft of the British company, Cathay Pacific Airways, crashed into the sea near Hainan island while on a regular scheduled flight from Bangkok to Hong Kong. The aircraft was carrying 18 persons including the crew. After a search in which British and United States aircraft cooperated, nine survivors, including the pilot, were rescued by an amphibious aircraft of the United States Navy and brought to Hong Kong. One of the survivors has since died. The nationalities of all those killed, rescued and missing are being ascertained.
The pilot, who was injured, stated that while flying at 9,000 feet about 30 miles from Hainan his co-pilot drew attention to two low-winged radial-engined fighter aircraft with red markings. These aircraft were on the tail of the passenger aircraft and opened fire apparently with incendiary bullets setting two engines on fire. The pilot of the passenger aircraft took evasive action as the fighter aircraft followed him and continued firing. He landed in the sea at 160 miles per hour.
Since the fighter aircraft could clearly only have come from Chinese territory, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking was instructed to protest most strongly to the Chinese Government against this wanton attack on a clearly marked British civil aircraft flying on a normal international air route.
We have now been informed by the Chinese Government that they admit responsibility for this attack which, they say, was entirely accidental. They have expressed their sympathy and regret, and say that they are willing to give consideration to the payment of appropriate benefit and compensation for the loss of life and for the damage to property. They also state that they are taking appropriate measures to deal with the incident. Her Majesty's Government welcome this prompt offer to make amends for this savage and inexcusable attack upon an unarmed passenger aircraft.
Her Majesty's Government wish to express the deepest sympathy for all those who have suffered tragic loss as the result of this wanton attack. We should also like to express our gratitude for the cooperation and assistance in rescue and search operations given by aircraft of the United States services.
The texts of the two Notes delivered by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking over the week-end and of the Chinese Government's reply will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Attlee: I should like to associate hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House with the Foreign Secretary's expression of regret at this incident, and express our sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives, and with those who suffered. While expressing our satisfaction at the fact that an apology has been made, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this is not the first time in which attacks have been made on civil aircraft by members of foreign air forces, who ought to be better informed? It seems to be absolutely inexcusable in this case. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the strongest representations cannot be made internationally for the avoidance of these incidents?

Mr. Eden: They have been made, and I must add that, in the judgment of Her

Majesty's Government, and in view of the clear markings on the aircraft attacked, we consider that disciplinary action should be taken by the Chinese Government against those concerned. We also think that measures must be taken at once to prevent a recurrence of such incidents as this.

Sir W. Fletcher: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions arising from his statement? First, is this not an instance pointing to the fact that the control of the Central People's Government of China, in Peking, in the outlying areas, particularly in South and South-West China and the area near Hainan, is very slight indeed, and that they really do not possess sufficient control to ensure their wishes being carried out? Secondly, in view of the misrepresentations that may be made and the danger to life and limb, will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to see that the proposed visit of the Leader of the Opposition and his fellow travellers to China does not take place?

Mr. Eden: I think my answer shows that, whatever we feel about the action—and the House has expressed itself on that—the counter-action has also been swiftly taken. I think that, while the House retains all its feelings about these incidents, we should measure them in relation to what has actually taken place.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not also a fact that the Chinese People's Government have said that this machine, which is an American-type plane, was mistaken for a machine from Formosa. Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that machines of this type do, in fact, fly in this area from Formosa?

Mr. Eden: A great many things are being said in various parts of the world about this at the moment. I have only given the House the actual facts, as I know them, and, whatever the excuse or lack of excuse, as far as the British Government are concerned, this is an incident which ought not to have taken place; and we must ask the Chinese Government to ensure that it will never take place again.

Air Commodore Harvey: While we are all most grateful to the Americans for the rescue work which they carried out,


would my right hon. Friend satisfy himself that there are sufficient British aircraft which could carry out similar rescues if required; and, secondly, will he see that, for a period at any rate, there are escorts for these civil aircraft flying on their legitimate routes?

Mr. Eden: I think that civil aircraft have a right not to be interfered with, and that is really the basis upon which we stand. We understand that British aircraft did go on rescue work, but any question as to their type and number is a matter for the Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the Foreign Secretary if he would take some action whereby the feeling of admiration and appreciation of all of us for the bravery and competence of the pilot and crew in handling this situation, which, no doubt, contributed to the saving of a number of lives in this very unhappy disaster, might be conveyed to them?

Mr. Eden: I should be very happy to do so. I think that that represents the feeling of the whole House.

Following are the texts of the two Notes:

1st Note: 24th July, 1954.
I have been instructed by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to bring the following matter to your attention.
On the morning of 23rd July a DC4 passenger aircraft of the British Company Cathay Pacific Airways, registration No. VRHEU, crashed into the sea near Hainan while on a regular scheduled flight from Bangkok to Hong Kong. The last signal received from the aircraft was an emergency call at 7.45 a.m. Peking time and stated that the port engine was on fire. The aircraft was carrying 17 persons including the crew. Subsequently 10 survivors, including the pilot, were rescued by amphibious aircraft and brought to Hong Kong.
The pilot who is injured, has now stated that while flying at 9,000 feet about 30 miles from Hainan in position 18 degrees north 110 degrees east his co-pilot drew attention to two cream coloured low wing piston engined fighter aircraft, rather like Japanese type Zeros with red filled-in markings. These aircraft were on the tail of the passenger aircraft and opened fire apparently with incendiary bullets setting two engines on fire. The instrument panel was marked by bullets. The pilot of the passenger aircraft took evasive action as the fighter aircraft followed him and continued firing. He landed in the sea at 160 miles per hour. It seems clear the fighter aircraft which attacked the aircraft VRHEU could only have

come from Chinese territory. I have been instructed to protest most strongly against this wanton attack on a British civil aircraft flying on a normal scheduled flight. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom must hold the Peoples Government of the Peoples Republic of China responsible for the tragic loss of life and the injuries sustained. Her Majesty's Government reserve the right to claim full compensation.

2nd Note: 25th July. 1954.
The Office of Her Britannic Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires present their compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese Central Government of the Peoples' Republic of China and have the honour to refer to Note No. 122 dated 24th July, 1954, addressed by Her Britannic Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires to His Excellency, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Chang Han-fu, concerning a passenger aircraft of the British company Cathay Pacific Airways. The following information has now been received. The statements taken from the passengers give further details of the two fighter aircraft which shot down the passenger aircraft. According to these statements they were single engine fighters with radial piston engines, coloured cream or light grey and carrying a red circle on the fuselage as identification marks. They also had red spinners and a white stripe about three feet wide running across the wings just in from the wing tip. The pilot has reported that the aircraft disappeared in the direction of Son-ya.
The Office of Her Britannic Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires also wishes to inquire whether the Central Peoples' Government have any news of other survivors from the aircraft. Nine persons are still missing.

CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S REPLY—25TH JULY

Your Note No. 122 dated 24th July, 1954, has been received with regard to the case involving a British transport aircraft. I am instructed by the Central Peoples' Government to give the following account of the circumstances obtained through investigation, which you are requested to transmit to the British Government. The Chinese people as well as the peoples of the world rejoice at the easing of the international situation through the recent holding of the Geneva Conference and the agreement reached on the question of restoring peace in Indo-China. Meanwhile, however, aircraft of the remnant Chiang Kai-shek bandit gang in Taiwan have enlarged even further the scope of their harassment of the coastal areas and islands of China, including Hainan Island, have dropped secret agents into China and have piratically intercepted and plundered merchant vessels of various nations sailing to China for trade in a desperate attempt to create tension in Asia. Therefore, fighting has frequently taken place over the coastal areas and islands of China.

According to the report received by our military authorities from Hainan Island, on the morning of 23rd July, patrol aircraft of the Peoples' Republic of China, while carrying out patrol duty over Port Yulin on Hainan Island, encountered an aircraft of the Chiang Kai-shek bandit gang over shat locality and fighting


took place. Upon receiving this report, the Government of the Peoples' Republic of China undertook an investigation through various channels and only then did it become known that the aircraft involved was actually a British-owned transport aircraft, mistaken by our patrol aircraft for an aircraft of the Kuomintang gang on a mission to raid our military base at Port Yulin. The occurrence of this unfortunate incident was, indeed, entirely accidental.

The Central Peoples' Government of the Peoples' Republic of China expresses its regret at this accidental and unfortunate incident involving the British transport aircraft, and is taking appropriate measures in dealing with it. It extends its sympathy, concern and condolences to the dead and injured in this incident and to their relatives. It is willing to give consideration to the payment of appropriate relief and compensation for the loss of life and property involved.

EAST-WEST TRADE (STRATEGIC CONTROLS AGREEMENT)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on the discussions we have been having with the United States and other countries about a revision of the strategic controls on exports to the Soviet bloc, as distinct from exports to China. As hon. Members are aware, the object of these talks has been to narrow substantially the area of control, consistent always with national security, while improving the methods of enforcement.
I am glad to say that we have now achieved substantial results. There are a few technical problems outstanding and we have not yet reached agreement on controls over the sale of ships; but discussions on these will continue. We have, however, reached unanimous agreement on a considerable reduction in the control lists. In brief, what we have agreed is that, as from 16th August, the present embargo list will be reduced by one-third from about 250 to 170 items and the quantitative control list will be drastically cut from 90 to 20. A further 60 items will be kept on a watch list so that we can follow the trend of these exports. Included in these lists are a few items which have been added for security reasons. The overall result will be a substantial increase in the area of permitted trade, which will, at the same time, be fully compatible with the needs of national security.
Agreement has also been reached on improved methods of enforcement. The other countries concerned already apply financial controls or controls on merchanting transactions, and it has now been agreed that those which have hitherto freely permitted the transit of goods will take steps to introduce controls in line with the transhipment control which we ourselves have operated since 1951. For our part, we shall supplement this action by imposing control over merchanting transactions with the Soviet bloc. An Order to establish this control will be laid before the House in due course.
I hope to be able to publish the revised control lists, but some problems of definition remain to be worked out, and this will have to be considered with the other interested countries. Meanwhile, any interested exporter who wishes to know whether a licence would be granted in respect of a particular product will be able to obtain all necessary information and advice from the export licensing branch of the Board of Trade or from the production department.

Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that nearly six months have elapsed since the Prime Minister made his encouraging statement about East-West trade and stated that these discussions would take place. It is still not clear from the statement of the President whether these are sweeping reductions or not. It seems as though they are not. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House—since these figures may mean nothing or very little—whether, as a case in point, machine tools will now be more freely exported to the areas that have been under control? Further, will he tell the House when he expects to be able to announce the decision of the Government, first about ships, and secondly, about what is now the quite meangingless boycott on exports to China?

Mr. Thorneycroft: On the last point, exports to China are a quite separate question, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper. On the question of the time which this has taken, I make no apology for the fact that this matter has been under serious consideration for two or three months. It has been an important matter in which some 14 other countries are involved, and I think it is right that we


should have discussed the matter carefully with them. On the question of the items which are included, I cannot go into details in the House until the lists are eventually published, but I can say that some machine tools are included.

Mr. Wilson: What about ships?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, asked me about ships. I referred to the matter in my original statement. The position, as he probably knows, is not altogether satisfactory and discussions are still going on. I hope to be able to make an announcement later.

Sir W. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend gave the figure of the reduction in the number of items as about one-third. May I ask whether that would represent roughly about a one-third reduction in value?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is difficult to compare volume, or the number of items, with the value because, besides reducing the number of items, there has been some redefinition of those which remain subject to embargo, which will, of itself, be of considerable assistance in our trade. The effect of these rearrangements will be of substantial benefit to the trade of this country, and will still be consistent with national security.

Mr. Wilson: With regard to shipbuilding, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment we are in danger of losing very considerable orders to other countries, including an order which would go to a firm very near to the right hon. hon. Gentleman's own constituency? Will he take note of the fact that even those ships that are allowed at the present time under the present control list are not all the subject of orders, because of some strange reluctance on the part of the British shipbuilding industry, which complains about lack of orders, to accept the Soviet orders that are open to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman press the shipbuilding industry to take some of those orders?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this country is under the same restrictive control, so far as the rules of the Co-ordinating Committee are concerned. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the

Admiralty has direct responsibility in this matter, and I believe that he is prepared to examine any inquiry or order for ships which comes forward at the present time, and we will look at it on its merits.

Mr. Robson Brown: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the international agreement arrived at will be warmly welcomed by British industry, because the present position is entirely unsatisfactory, chaotic and unrealistic?

Mr. Wade: To what extent is the differentiation in control over the export of goods to countries in the Soviet bloc and to China resulting in abnormal increase in the re-export of goods from the countries in the Soviet bloc to China?

Mr. Thorneycroft: These particular discussions have been the result of the work of the Co-ordinating Committee in Paris. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the restrictions upon China work under a completely different system, under a resolution of the United Nations.

Mr. M. Lindsay: While appreciating the value of my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him whether he cannot reply in most general terms to the supplementary question asked by the right hon. Member the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), since it is quite meaningless to apply an embargo to China which we cannot apply to Soviet Russia?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the right hon Member for Huyton has a Question down on Wednesday next about exports to China. It is difficult to deal with that subject in the context of this statement, because all our discussions have been restricted solely to exports to the Soviet bloc. If we start confusing China with the Soviet bloc we shall get into difficulties.

Mr. S. Silverman: Although what the right hon. Gentleman has said is perfectly true, does he not realise, nevertheless, that the approach to the Soviet bloc side of the matter has been an international approach and is useful for that very reason? Many of us would like to know whether the Government propose to take any initiative to deal with the China situation along the same lines?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me, on this statement, into a very much wider field than


the question with which we are concerned here of the effect that the strategic control will have on the Soviet and its European satellites.

Mr. Bottomley: I recently put a Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty on the supply of ships to the Soviet Union, and he told me that responsibility rested with the President of the Board of Trade. The President now says that that is not so. Can we be told who is responsible?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the right hon. Gentleman will see me afterwards I will try to sort it out.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the anxiety in the locomotive industry in Glasgow among both employers and employed about unemployment, and as they would like to see an increase in the trade in locomotives with the Soviet bloc, can the President of the Board of Trade tell us anything about that position?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the local industry have orders which they wish to send, and have any difficulty about definition or the like and if they will get into touch with me or with the production department concerned they will get the information that they require.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Professor Sir Douglas Savory: I beg leave to ask to be allowed to make a personal statement. I find that in my speech in the House of Commons on 14th July I stated, when referring to the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland, that no communication had been received asking for any change to be made. I am informed that I was mistaken, and that at least one letter was received on 26th May, making suggestions for an alteration in the boundaries. I therefore desire to express my regret for unwittingly misleading the House of Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 22nd July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'Clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'Clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [22nd July]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1954–55; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR
ESTIMATES, 1954–55.

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55, ARMY ESTIMATES, 1954–55, AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1954–55

1. £179,079,578 for the following services connected with Education in England and Wales, namely:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1954–55


Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Education
£


164,497,078


Class IV, Vote 11, Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
14,582,500


Total
£179,079,578

2. £47,080,588 for the following services connected with Kenya, namely:—


CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55, ARMY ESTIMATES, 1954–55, AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1954–55



£


Class II, Vote 8, Colonial Office
714,660


Class II, Vote 9, Colonial Services (including a Supplementary sum of £227,000)
26,475,928


Class II, Vote 11, Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)
12,500,000


Army Estimates, Vote 3, War Office
3,200,000


Air Estimates, Vote 3, Air Ministry
4,190,000


Total
£47,080,588

3. That a sum, not exceeding £7,763,558, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with House of Commons Accommodation, etc., for the year ending on 31st March, 1955, namely:—


CIVIL ESTIMATES (AMD SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1954–55



£


Class VII, Vote 2, Houses of Parliament Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £34,000)
283,000


Class VII, Vote 1, Ministry of Works
4,676,960


Class I, Vote 4, Treasury and Subordinate Departments
2,044,132


Class I, Vote 2, House of Commons (including a Supplementary sum of £126,000)
759,466


Total
£7,763,558

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55

CLASS I

4. That a sum, not exceeding £10,365,176, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS II

5. That a sum, not exceeding £29,829,015, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS III

6. That a sum, not exceeding £61,174,808, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS IV

7. That a sum, not exceeding £38,948,212, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS V

8. That a sum, not exceeding £414,358,720, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VI

9. That a sum, not exceeding £188,990,110, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VII

10. That a sum, not exceeding £40,720,866, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VIII

11. That a sum, not exceeding £243,444,973, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS IX

12. That a sum, not exceeding £90,428,420, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS X

13. That a sum, not exceeding £269,683,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1954–55

14. That a sum, not exceeding £189,229,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1954–55

15. That a sum, not exceeding £16,154,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence, expenses in connection with the International Defence Organisations, including a grant in aid; and a grant in aid of certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1954–55

16. That a sum, not exceeding £207,407,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1954–55

17. That a sum, not exceeding £303,300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1954–55

18. That a sum, not exceeding £141,810,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services.

[For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1954, cols. 1694–1700]

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

EDUCATION

3.52 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: The small amount of time devoted to education in this House bears no relation to the interest shown in the subject by parents and others in the country especially at this time of year when children are coming home with their school reports and when the results of examinations are becoming known. I hope that today we shall have a debate about education, and that during the debate we shall hear something from the Government about what their plans are—that is, if they have any plans. All we know up to now is what is contained in two sentences of the Tory Party's last General Election manifesto, which said:
In Education and in Health some of the most crying needs are not being met. For the money now being spent we will provide better services and so fulfil the high hopes we all had when we planned improvements during the war.
It did not take the Tory Party and the Tory Government very long to show how they were going to fulfil those very high hopes, because the first action of the Tory Government was to effect economies in education. First of all, we had Circular 242, which made local education authorities make some very petty economies. After that, we had Circular 245, which gravely affected the school building programme. Indeed, the most that the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education appears to have done since that time is to stop others doing what they wanted to do.
Many of the speeches made by the right hon. Lady during her first two years of office were devoted to showing how clever she was to have put the roofs on schools the walls of which had been built by her predecessor. It is a great pity that nearly all our education debates, both in this House and outside, have to be concerned, not with education itself, but with bricks and mortar; but that is inevitable, because we must have buildings in which to put the children before they can be educated.
However, I hope that during this debate we are not going to spend all the time arguing who did what when, nor, I hope, are we going to have those unfair comparisons such as the one made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of


Housing and Local Government in the debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates on school buildings on 1st July, 1953, when he compared the present Government's school building for 1952 with the average for the five years before 1951. I think it is self-evident that such a comparison is very unfair. How can we compare 1952–53—having been told that the building position has so improved that we can set the builders free and take off all controls—with the years 1947–48, just at the end of the war, when we had so many shortages?
We on this side of the House have a record in regard to education of which we can be proud. In spite of the increase in the birth-rate, and in spite of the raising of the school-leaving age, which brought hundreds of thousands of extra children into the schools during our years of office, the number of pupils per teacher fell in every year.
Let us compare the Report of 1951 with that of 1953. While the Report for 1951 was signed by the right hon. Lady, it in fact covered 10 months of the period when the late Mr. George Tomlinson was in office and only two months when she herself was in office. That Report covered the Labour Government's last year in office and showed that the number of pupils per teacher was still falling, and that the number of over-large classes had been decreased. I will not go into the details of the figures, because they are there to be seen by all.
How different is the position shown in the Report for 1953, the one issued a few weeks ago. From that we see that during 1953 the number of pupils per teacher was rising, and that the number of over-large classes had increased. In short, the true test is not the amount of building undertaken; it is that, whereas under the Labour Government the situation was steadily improving, under a Tory Government it has been getting gradually worse. The effort is not matching the problem. I hope that in this debate we shall look at the position as it is today, and at what is being done to effect an improvement in the next few years.
I wish, first, to talk about building. Circular 245, which was issued in February, 1952, laid down conditions under which local authorities could build schools. Those conditions were very stringent and represented the bare minimum. Many schools were deferred

altogether. At the time, local authorities and educational bodies protested that Circular 245 represented too little. However, that is the basis on which we have been proceeding since 1952.
What has happened during this past year? Recently, local authorities have been sending to the Minister the estimates of the amount of school building which they think is the bare minimum necessary to satisfy the needs of Circular 245 for the next year. It has been calculated that, altogether, the local authorities have estimated that £88 million of buildings are needed by 146 local authorities in order to meet this bare minimum.
Up to the present time, the Minister has replied to 75 of these local authorities, who between them wanted £42 million for building during the coming year. The right hon. Lady has cut the £42 to £24 million. Indeed, it looks as if the Government have decided that £45 million to £50 million is the maximum which can be spent on building for the next year, and that the estimates of the local authorities have to be cut down to that amount. It is quite clear that this sum is not sufficient to provide even the bare minimum as laid down in Circular 245.
I could give the House many examples of what this policy has meant in the various localities. Dr. Alexander, the secretary of the Association of Education Committees—no debate on education would be complete without a quotation from him—said, when these figures became known:
We shall be seeing the Ministry about the cuts. It is disturbing that when Britain is supposed to be winning through, school-building restrictions are worse than at any time since the war.
That is the statement of the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees.
If we look at the actual results of what has happened in the localities, this is what we see. Nottingham asked for £1 million worth of school buildings. It is to be allowed to build only £445,000 worth. Two new secondary schools, two new primary schools and the completion of one infants school, are to be allowed, but three secondary and two primary schools have to be postponed altogether. Northumberland asked for £1,360,000 worth. That has been cut to £432,000.


It asked for 12 new schools for 4,590 pupils. Only four schools for 1,670 pupils have been allowed.
This is the sort of thing that is happening all over the country. What I should like to impress upon the Minister is that the local authorities know the situation. They know the local problem. They have to deal with it in their own localities. They see the children needing schools but know that they have no schools in which to put those children.
I should like to ask the right hon. Lady this question. Did the various local authorities in their estimates go beyond the requirements of Circular 245? If they did not, is the Minister now prepared to admit that Circular 245 is not now the Government's policy, but that there are some more stringent regulations? That is what we want to know from the right hon. Lady this afternoon. I believe that the time has come—nine years after the war—when we ought to be getting beyond Circular 245. The fact that nearly all our new schools have to be built on new housing estates means that those children who have to live in old houses are condemned also to be educated in old schools, whereas those children who have the advantages of living on a new housing estate live in new houses and have new schools.
Recently when we were discussing the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that he was surveying the houses and dividing them into certain categories. There were, first, the slum houses which ought to be knocked down. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why didn't you pull them down?"] Well, who built them? Then there were dilapidated houses that needed money spending on them, and the structurally good houses which really needed some modern amenities. I believe the time has come when we need a similar survey of our schools.
There are, first of all, the slum schools, the black-listed schools, which are absolutely beyond hope and which need to be replaced as soon as possible. It has been estimated by various educational bodies that from £1 million to £2 million a year spent on replacing obsolete buildings would work a veritable miracle, but the right hon. Lady told a deputation

that this sum could not be spent. Nevertheless, there are the slum schools that need pulling down as quickly as possible.
Secondly, there are the structurally good schools. In some cases those are three-storeyed buildings, built at the end of the 19th century, and, alas, built to last for too many years. We have thousands of them with us today. We have to remember that these schools are not coming down in the next two or three years. They are structurally good and will probably be in use for another 30 to 50 years. They are dark, they are dreary, they are airless. They are sometimes badly equipped and full of old furniture. I believe that we now need a bold plan to do something about them.
First, they need light and air. Those can be obtained by the simple process of knocking out a few bricks and putting in a few windows. All schools should have first-rate sanitary fittings and hot water. It is amazing, too, what a few coats of light-coloured paint can do. When I go round I am always struck by the number of old schools which have old furniture and old equipment. I was in a school in Leeds only a fortnight ago, when I was distributing the prizes. The school was built in 1883, and the local education authority decided to give that old school a really first-class library. At a cost of £750 there is in that old school as good a library as there is in any of the new schools that we have since built.
I know that the right hon. Lady may reply that it is up to the local authorities to apply for money for minor capital projects in order to do this work. Of course it is, but let us see what happens when they do apply. Last year, requests for supplementary allocations for minor capital projects were received by the Minister from 102 authorities. Only 14 of those were allowed in full, 81 in part, and seven were refused altogether. I have here a few figures to show in detail the kind of thing that has happened. They are figures given in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley).
Southampton County Borough wanted to spend £42,690 on these minor capital works, but the right hon. Lady cut that sum to £13,600. Hampshire wanted to spend £94,470 on these minor works; she cut it to £40,000. Portsmouth wished to spend £28,844 she cut that to £9,165.


So we could go on. Indeed, much of the money which is being allowed and which should be used for these minor capital projects is today having to be spent by local authorities on extensions to existing school buildings.
When we think that this small amount of money which she is refusing to allow the local authorities to spend represents work that would make life a little more tolerable, we can see the extent of the economy of this Government on education. Children who live in the back streets of our industrial towns should be educated in more cheerful schools, and the Minister should do all that she can to encourage that.
I pass to rural schools. Here there is a different problem—that of reorganisation. Half the children in our rural areas are still in unreorganised schools. For them it is not a choice of which secondary school they shall attend. For them there is no secondary education at all. The Association of Education Committees has estimated that it would need the expenditure of £3 million to £4 million a year for five years to complete the reorganisation in the rural areas. However, when a deputation put that to the right hon. Lady, she refused the request. Yet, let us not forget that this same Government are spending £2 million on capital works for commercial television and £750,000 each year for ordinary expenditure— and this is not to benefit the children of our country. Indeed, this money is being spent on a project which all educational bodies agree will be to the detriment of our children.
I feel very strongly about this matter, because until I came to this House I spent my time in council schools. I first entered a council school when I was 2½ years old. I took myself to the school at the back of our house. I passed on from there to the grammar school, and, except for a period at college, I taught in council schools up to the day that I came here. I know what it is like to teach in an old school with only a partition between one class-room and another.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: And sometimes with no partition.

Miss Bacon: Yes, and sometimes with no partition. I know what it is like to try to concentrate on arithmetic when the

class next door, which is separated by a thin partition, is having a lesson in music. I know what it is like to go out of those old buildings into the really beautiful new schools, and I know the difference that this can make. I am not unique on this side of the House; many of my hon. Friends have had this experience, but this kind of thing is practically a closed book to hon. Members opposite. I doubt whether many of them have ever been in a council school except to speak at General Election meetings.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: May I appeal to the hon. Lady not to add insults to her very weak case? There are hon. Members on this side of the House who had the whole of their education in council schools and who have a very long and honourable service in council administration. The hon. Lady does herself and her party no good by imagining that they and they alone have experience in these schools.

Miss Bacon: I agree that there are one or two unique persons on the opposite side of the House. I said that most of them had not been educated in council schools.
In the next few years the effect of the increased birth-rate will be passing from the primary to the secondary schools. Overcrowding in any school is shocking, but in the primary school there is a certain amount of equality in that all children in one area are in the same school. But we have different types of secondary school—the grammar, the modern and the technical. Today the classes in grammar schools are much smaller than the classes in modern schools, and I am wondering what is going to happen when the increased number of children pass from the primary schools into the secondary schools.
Will the grammar school classes still remain as small as they are now, or will all the overcrowding take place in the secondary modern schools? If that is so, and if very few new grammar schools are built, there will be another result of this policy; there will be a reduction in the percentage of children of 11 years passing to grammar schools, and already in some cases the percentage of children passing to grammar schools is extremely low.
Surely this is a time to consider the whole question of secondary education in this country. We on this side of the.


House are quite honest about it. We believe that it is a wrong principle to select children at the age of 11 for different types of school. We say quite honestly that we believe in the comprehensive school, which is, after all, merely a secondary school to which all children in a district go, and where they find their special bent and follow it as long as they and their parents wish.
Last week I visited Kidbrooke, which I think is very unfortunate to be starting its life in the midst of political controversy. Kidbrooke is a marvellous place, a place where there are normal and specialised courses for the children. There is a pre-nursing course. There are all kinds of practical courses such as millinery, tailoring, pottery, art, and commercial courses, plus all the academic courses found in a grammar school, such as languages, classics and so on, and children can proceed from there to the university.
One hon. Member opposite who was in the party that visited Kidbrooke last week was honest enough to say that he was most impressed by Kidbrooke and that if he had only realised what a comprehensive school was, he would not have opposed it. It is as well to know what one is criticising before one criticises, but there has been a great deal of misrepresentation about this matter, and I am sorry that it has been brought into the realm of party politics, because I regard it as an educational issue. I am a politician but, as I say, I taught children from the ages of 11 to 15 for some years before I came here, and my belief in the comprehensive school is derived, not from my membership of the Labour Party, but from my experience with children aged 11 to 15.
What about the attitude of the Minister in this respect? She and her party have repeatedly said that we should allow experiments in the comprehensive schools, and she offered no objection to London or to Coventry. Her method was much more subtle than outright opposition. She thought how clever she would be and she went and made a misleading speech to the Conservative women, which incited them to send in a petition, and so she had the grounds for refusing to close Eltham Hill Grammar School, which was to be incorporated in Kidbrooke. I believe that the right hon.

Lady's conduct in this matter has been most reprehensible. She approved Kidbrooke, but what was the use of approving it if, when the school was built, she sabotaged the whole idea by making sure that the school was not going to be fully comprehensive? This was the back-door method.
Will the right hon. Lady tell the local authority at Coventry and the other authorities that are making experiments in comprehensive schools whether or not she is going to do the same sort of thing in their localities, because it would be much more honest to say so now than to wait until the school is ready for opening? Her action in respect of Kidbrooke has meant that the academic type of child can be found only in the classes catering for the 11-year-olds, and it means that it will be some six or seven years before a true assessment of the experiment can be made. Nevertheless, Kidbrooke will succeed in spite of what she has done.
The truth is that the right hon. Lady wants Kidbrooke to fail, and it is not difficult to see why. I was reading in the "Schoolmaster" on 18th June an article by someone who had visited Kidbrooke school, and the article ended by saying:
On a doorstep of a nearby prefab I asked one of the 3,000 local parents her views on the new school. She summed it up neatly. 'Well, I mean,' she said, 'it's giving them all such a chance, isn't it?' 
That is the answer. This school is giving all a chance, and it seems to be against the philosophy of the Tory Party to give everybody a fair chance.
As I say, my belief in the comprehensive school is based on educational grounds, and I believe that the Minister's opposition is nothing but party political prejudice against giving all children a fair chance. The schools of Eton and Harrow are really comprehensive schools. [Interruption.] That is quite true. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would have passed the common entrance selection test if he had not gone to Harrow.
This clash with London is only one of the many clashes that there have been between the Minister and the local education authorities. Never in the history of the Department has the Ministry been so unpopular with local authorities. Only last week we had an example, which was reported in the newspapers on Friday


morning, of what happened in North-amptonshire. I have here a copy of the "Daily Mirror." These are quotations from the actual words used by responsible members of local authorities:
Councillor Harold Taylor said: 'One cannot express oneself too strongly about her arrogant attitude. The sooner this person is dismissed from her post the better for the whole community.' 
He went on to state what had happened with regard to Northamptonshire.
I want to be very clear about this. The Minister has powers of direction under the Education Act, 1944. In the past there has been too much permissive legislation, which has resulted in unequal opportunity. For that reason, I agree that the Minister should have powers of control and direction if we are to have a national system of education, and backward education authorities are to be brought up to standard; but those powers must be used in the interests of the children. Under the right hon. Lady's administration they are being used against the best interests of the children, in order to prevent local education authorities from being progressive.
Many other questions arise from the Report that we have had from the Minister. I cannot deal with all of them. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be dealing in great detail with some. Her Report discloses the fact that, although there was an increase of 240,000 children in our schools last year, the number of school meals served dropped from three million to 2,750,000. I should like to hear something from the Minister about training college grants. These grants for intending teachers are inadequate, and there is great variation among the different authorities. On the whole, they compare very unfavourably with grants for students going to universities. I should also like to hear more from the right hon. Lady about technical and technological education, and what was meant by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement last week. A very important report on this subject has been published by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.
I know that the right hon. Lady will say that the things I have been asking for today would cost a lot more money, but every Government—the Tory Government of today and the future Labour

Government—must face the fact that more money must be spent on education. Allowing for the fall in the value of the pound, for increasing costs and for the increased numbers of children in our schools, we are not spending as much per child as we were before the war. We must face that fact quite squarely.
It is essential that local government finance should be looked at in relation to educational expenditure. In the Tory Party's programme, "Britain Strong and Free," page 28, contains these words:
A review of the impact of the cost of education on local government finance should be undertaken.
The party opposite have been in office for three years, but up to now there has been no evidence that such a review is being undertaken or is likely to be undertaken in the near future.
I think I have said sufficient to show that we have no confidence in the ability of this Government to provide education. This Government put brewers, steel owners, road hauliers and advertising firms before children. They have no plans for education; indeed, I have never heard the right hon. Lady make a speech about education. Meanwhile the position gets worse, and there seems to be no grasp of the gravity of the situation.
The right hon. Lady and the Parliamentary Secretary remind me of people in a type of old-fashioned school which is now happily extinct. The right hon. Lady is like the old-fashioned type of headmistress who used to survey the world from her high desk. She gave orders and entered into no arguments. Her word was law. She thought that everything she did was right, and never even considered that it could possibly be wrong. Then we have the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether he is going to speak today. Those of us who have been teachers recognise that he is like the teacher who cannot keep order, and whom the children love to rag. He walks about with his head in the air, in a world of his own, and has not a clue whether what he is doing is right or wrong.
Meanwhile, we have the Government, who are content to leave everything to the headmistress—rather like the old-fashioned school governors—provided that she does not spend too much. They do not care very much whether everything is right or wrong, because their


children are not going to the school anyway.
In short, the Minister is complacent; the Parliamentary Secretary is incompetent, and the Government are indifferent. The tragedy is that these are the people who are in charge of six million of the nation's children—our most precious national asset. It is clear that the country cannot afford to tolerate them any longer, and that they ought to leave the charge of these six million children to people who really care about education.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I listened to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) with great respect. She promised that she would speak about education, but she appeared to me to devote practically the whole of her speech to talking party politics. That is a regrettable fact about the approach of the Labour Party to education. They give so little thought to the essence of education, and devote themselves almost exclusively to seeking to steal votes at the next Election by misrepresenting the facts.
It was said that a parent of stern Victorian ideas went to his boy's headmaster the other day and said, "I do not know what you are teaching my boy, but I do not like it, because he seems to be enjoying it." That illustrates the vast change which has taken place in the schools in the last 50 years. For all that the hon. Lady has said she will surely agree with me, in her heart, that with all their known defects present-day schools are happy places. We should give credit to everybody, at whatever level, who is helping to make them so.

Miss Bacon: To the teachers.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady insinuated that I did not know what the inside of a council school looked like.

Miss Bacon: Miss Baconindicated dissent.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady may shake her head, but that is what she said about the Tory Members sitting opposite her, and I must take her as meaning what she said. I happen to have been a school manager for many years. This is the season of the year when school prizes are given, and I should say that a good many Members on both sides of the House have recently been in and out of schools,

at prize-givings, to see the children or, as I was last week, at a presentation to a primary school headmaster who was retiring after more than 25 years in that position.
I think the hon. Lady will agree with me that one can tell the quality of a school almost as soon as one steps over the threshold. I had a specially interesting talk with this headmaster—not so very far away from this building—after the presentation ceremony, and he told me of the continuous improvement which he had noted during his 40 years' teaching service, both among the children and in the schools. The barefoot child has disappeared, at any rate in London. I was particularly struck by his remark that the 11-year-olds had nowadays acquired an ease and poise in talking to grown-ups which he would have hardly imagined at the beginning of his teaching service.
What we have to do in the schools is to create happiness and achieve high standards, and if both sides of the House can agree on that, then we shall have a common starting point. We must debate among ourselves the questions of principle that divide us, such as, for instance, the organisation of secondary education, but I submit to the House that it is no service to the cause of education to inject so much bitterness as the hon. Lady sought to engender today. Bitterness and true education do not mix, any more than oil and water, and it will be an excellent thing if in the rest of this debate we can address ourselves to the real educational problems which stare us in the face.
I grant this to the hon. Lady at once. We on this side are as fully aware as she is of the very many shortcomings in the schools which still have to be made good. But the real business of education is not done in the Ministry of Education, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, or in local education offices, or in Parliament. The real business of education goes on in the class-rooms, on the playing fields, if schools are lucky enough to have playing fields, on the playgrounds and in all the out-of-school activities.
All the jargon of educational administration, and a great deal of the party abuse we throw at one another, can do more harm than good. Perhaps the


House knows the story of the small boy who was found sobbing on the pavement outside school by an old gentleman who came by. The old gentleman sought to console and encourage him, and to show him the way in, and he said to the boy, "This is the boys' entrance." The small boy, still sobbing, replied, "Boohoo. I am not a boy. I am a mixed infant." That illustrates how remote most of the jargon in which educational reports have to be written is from the real life of boys and girls.
What each Government since the war has had to do is to set about the task, first, of catching up on the war years and, second, of providing for the enormous bulge—there is no means of escaping that horrid word—consequent on the increase in the birth-rate since the war. The success of my right hon. Friend in tackling both those tasks has been a magnificent achievement, and everybody who has studied the facts and figures knows that that is so. The number of teachers has been going up by nearly 6,000 a year. I think it was in 1951 that the National Advisory Council said that we would need an additional 40,000 teachers by 1960. That was a bit of an under-estimate, but it is perfectly clear, as things are going at present, that we are going to have far more than the additional 40,000 teachers by 1960. The entries to the training colleges at the present time are running at a satisfying level.
That means that, as we have very nearly reached the peak of numbers in the primary schools, the time is coming close when it will be possible to reduce the size of classes—either to reduce the size of classes, I should say, or to fill the gaps by letting in larger numbers of the under-fives. That is an important question that will have to be decided. My own sincere hope is that we shall choose the first alternative, because I attach overwhelming importance to the primary school as the very foundation of education, and I do not believe that adequate education can be given in classes of the size that are now all too common in primary schools. I hope, therefore, that the House, without distinction of party, will go on record as saying that we must not throw the doors wider and wider open to the under-fives as the bulge passes out of the primary schools, but rather that we

must use that opportunity to decrease the numbers in classes.
After all, however one may argue educationally or politically about the independent schools as distinct from the State system, what we all know in out hearts is that the independent schools at the present time possess one indisputable advantage, and that is that there, and there alone, parents can be sure of their children being educated in sufficiently small classes to make education a reality. I bitterly deplore the size of the gap between the two, but let us, for heaven's sake, aim primarily at bringing down the size of classes in the State schools, rather than abuse the independent schools for being able to do what in present circumstances the State schools cannot yet attain.
The hon. Lady spoke a great deal about school building. The answer to all that she has said is in the graph which she will surely have studied on page 40 of the new Report of the Ministry which came out the other day. If hon. Members will look at that graph they will see that it indicates the rate of progress of educational building since the war. The line which shows the contracts completed suddenly takes an upward turn at the end of 1951, just about the time when my right hon. Friend took office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but that is the only way in which they can possibly answer what I am going to say, because it cannot be answered by any logic of their own. The facts are entirely on my side.
The rate of school building was too low in the years immediately after the war and school buildings were being finished too slowly in 1951, and what my right hon. Friend took over was a situation very nearly comparable to that which existed in house building in 1947, when there were far too many houses under construction and too few being finished. It was the same with the schools, and my right hon. Friend took precisely the correct action to ensure that the schools were finished and that the number of school places provided went up swiftly.
I have here the figures of value of work done on school building, and they certainly contrast strangely with the impression the hon. Lady sought to make. The total value of work done on school


building in 1951 was approximately £35½ million. In 1952 it was about £36½ million. In 1953 it was £40 million. That is the achievement of my right hon. Friend, who has been vehemently attacked from the other side today for not doing enough to provide additional school places.
The hon. Lady said that Circular 245 gravely affected the school building programme. It did gravely affect it. It gravely affected it for the better. There is only one real test of success in the school building programme. It is the number of extra school places provided. In 1951, the last year of the Labour Government, the number of places provided was 159,000. In 1952, under my right hon. Friend, it went up to 218,000, and in 1953 it was 260,000. Perhaps my right hon. Friend, at the end of the debate, will be able to give even more recent figures.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Member quoted Circular 245. If he has read that Circular, he will have seen that it confirms the deliberate decision on the part of the Government to reduce the steel allocation for school building, and this is emphasised throughout the Circular.

Miss Bacon: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that point, may I ask whether he denies the figures which I have quoted to show that classes are getting larger?

Mr. Brooke: I well know that classes are getting larger; so they have been for a number of years. It is the remarkable achievement of my right hon. Friend that, although over a short period of years the total number of children in the schools is in process of going up by no less than 35 per cent., nevertheless it has proved possible to provide a place for every additional child going into the schools. The hon. Lady made great play with the alleged cuts in the building programme.

Mr. Peart: What about the steel?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member referred to the steel shortage, which we have now fortunately overcome. I am referring to the overall result, which has delivered the goods. The hon. Lady spoke of cuts. She must know, because

she has had the benefit of a splendid education, that it is possible for any local authority to show an apparent cut in its school building programme if it asks for a sufficiently large amount. Let me give an illustration. The London County Council, under the control of members of her party, in 1949, asked for an educational building programme of, if I remember rightly, approximately £7 million, which was twice as much as it had managed to do in any previous year, and the late Mr. Tomlinson cut that programme to something in the neighbourhood of £4 million. I do not remember that there was then the same violent outcry from hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, there was."] The fact remains that that £4 million, which showed an apparent cut of £3 million on what was asked for, turned out to be a perfectly reasonable decision because it represented the maximum which the authority could do.
I have no doubt whatever that if the House could analyse each of these cuts put forward by the hon. Lady, it would be found that in each case what the Ministry is permitting is an amount commensurate with the actual powers of that particular local education authority to start.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: Surely the hon. Member recollects that when the cut was made by Mr. Tomlinson, the county council made a number of representations to him. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend was a member of the delegation. It is true that the council said that in a particular year it might not be able to spend the whole of that amount, and that is why the council proposed a three-year programme, which has now in fact been granted.

Mr. Brooke: I was not a member of the delegation, and I do not think that the hon. Member was a member of the county council in those days. I used that illustration to show how a cut takes place when a local authority in fact asks for more than it can manage, much as it might like to be able to carry out the whole programme for which it asked.
The hon. Lady asked for a survey of the older schools. I am all for surveys if the technical people are available to carry them out, but I doubt whether we have come to the stage when we have


sufficient technical men readily available in the local education authority offices and in the Ministry to undertake a fact-finding nation-wide survey of this kind. I would say that it was better to concentrate upon getting on with the job of improvements as quickly as possible.
The hon. Lady criticised my right hon. Friend for having cut down the minor works programmes of some of the local education authorities, but the hon. Lady forgot to tell the House that the total of the minor works programmes approved by my right hon. Friend for the current year is considerably higher than the programmes approved in any year during the Labour Government, so that the local education authorities are getting a better chance now than ever before to continue with the so-called minor works—the smaller items to bring the schools up to date.

Miss Bacon: Perhaps the hon. Member did not read the right hon. Lady's answer to me last week, which showed that most of the money that is being allocated for minor works was to be used for extra class-rooms and not for improvements.

Mr. Brooke: I will leave my right hon. Friend who, I believe, is winding-up the debate, to speak for herself on that point. I think I am justified in pointing out to the hon. Lady that the minor works programme approved by this Government is substantially higher than that approved in any year by the Government which she supported.
All these very remarkable figures—the increase in the number of teachers, the vast increase in the number of school places provided, the expenditure met out of public funds, larger than ever before—all this is being attained despite the financial crisis of 1951, which we fortunately survived, and despite the pressure of an unprecedented defence programme on men, materials and money.
I hope that we shall not have later in the debate any suggestion that the solution for all educational stringencies is a drastic reduction in the defence programme. The schools cannot be insulated from what is going on elsewhere. The most shattering blow which our educational system ever sustained was the war of 1939 and the evacuation of the schools which was then thought necessary. It certainly brought forth the magnificent

powers of adaptation and improvisation which both teachers and local education authorities, but particularly the teachers, possessed, and it provided some memorable incidents in the history of education; but any Government action which might in the least degree increase the risk of war by neglect of its defence programme would be a grave blow to the future of British education.
Education is a living part of the nation. I am troubled when I hear people at educational conferences and elsewhere arguing that we ought to go on doing all that we want and providing everything that is needed in the educational sphere, whatever cuts that might necessitate in other directions, and whatever the total demands on our national resources. I think that there is great truth in the saying:
We shall not be able to make much progress with these tasks as long as our livelihood as a nation is insecure.
I quote that from "Challenge to Britain." It seems to me exactly to express the situation which my right hon. Friend and her colleagues had to meet in 1951. At that time our livelihood was insecure. It is now far more secure, and we are seeing the fruits of progress.
I come to the second part of the hon. Lady's speech about the future organisation of secondary education. My own belief is that up to 1939 we tended to concentrate too large a proportion of our efforts on the secondary grammar schools, and that one of the great problems which needed to be tackled after the 1944 Act was how to give full educational opportunity to those boys and girls who were not of grammar school type.
For that purpose all kinds of experiments were clearly desirable. When the hon. Lady expressed her regret that comprehensive schools had been brought into the realm of party politics, I was reminded that it was her party that did it, by laying down that the meeting of the need for new secondary schools by comprehensive schools, and comprehensive schools alone, was their party policy. Inevitably that made it a party issue, because we on this side think that, before the comprehensive school has been tried out, it is educationally wrong to say that by no other possible way whatever can the problem of providing good secondary education for the non-bookish children be solved.
I have seen some new secondary modern schools built by various authorities which believe in them, and I am certain that they will give a first-rate education. I have seen places where the education authority have taken over old senior elementary schools, adapted them intelligently and created what are in effect new secondary schools, of which both teachers and children are proud. I want to see those experiments continuing along with the experiments on comprehensive schools which my right hon. Friend has sanctioned.
The hon. Lady astonished the House by saying that my right hon. Friend had sabotaged Kidbrooke, and that Kidbrooke would not now be a typical example of a comprehensive school. Kidbrooke as planned by the London County Council could not have started off as a typical example of a comprehensive school. The idea of the council was to give Kidbrooke a flying start by bringing into it the whole of the grammar school tradition, with the transfer of a whole existing grammar school of girls. That is not a normal comprehensive school. It will not be possible all over the country to create comprehensive schools by destroying a grammar school at the same time. These new schools must stand on their own feet. They must not stand on the legs of grammar schools.

Miss Bacon: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot start a comprehensive school without taking children from somewhere. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is all right to take children from a modern school but not from a grammar school.

Mr. Brooke: We must build up a comprehensive school as we build up every school. It is not in the least reasonable to carry over into a new school the whole of an existing first-rate grammar school and then to say that it is a typical example of a comprehensive school.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). This is precisely what was happening in connection with one of the central schools and two or three modern schools. The idea was to bring the

grammar school children in at the same age and to have all the children at the same level.

Mr. Brooke: The London County Council and other authorities may think that it is possible to sweeten the success of the comprehensive experiment by stealing for that purpose the grammar school tradition from an existing school, but that is not the way in which we are accustomed to seeing new schools built up.

Mr. James Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman deny to the Anglesey County Council, which has taken all the children of 11-plus into its new comprehensive school, the right to do what it did? Would he have kept out the old grammar school established in Holyhead? Surely, to give a fair start, we must take all the youngsters in the area whatever their I.Q.

Mr. Brooke: I have not seen Holyhead. I think that the hon. Gentleman has visited it, as has my right hon. Friend. I was addressing myself to the hon. Lady's specific reference to Kidbrooke, about which I know.
I return to the confusion of thought which appears to exist among hon. Members opposite in their advocacy of comprehensive schools. We have even had the statement from the hon. Lady that Eton and Harrow are comprehensive schools. If they are, they are far more highly selective than any of the comprehensive schools which we are talking about.

Mr. W. G. Cove: Educationally Eton and Harrow are comprehensive schools; socially they are not.

Mr. Brooke: I have heard the argument adduced, in favour of the very large London County Council schools, that Manchester Grammar School has 1,500 boys, and is highly successful. But they do not fill Manchester Grammar School just by bringing in all the boys in a certain area of Manchester. No boy gets into that school unless he has considerable ability at the time of entrance. Also, schools like Manchester Grammar School have a much higher staffing ratio of masters to boys than the proposed comprehensive schools of which we are speaking.
I shall be intensely interested in the comprehensive school experiment. There appear to be a number of questions quite unanswered as yet by its advocates. Kidbrooke and other schools may provide the answers. My sole objection is to the attitude of the party opposite, as a party, in saying at this stage, before we know the answers to those questions, that the answers are bound to come out right, and therefore we can put all our eggs into the one basket. It was the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland which some years ago condemned roundly the very large comprehensive schools which are being advocated now in London and elsewhere.

Mr. William Ross: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be fair to the Advisory Council and say that it came down in favour of the comprehensive school.

Mr. Brooke: Yes. I have not been ruling out the comprehensive school. I am inclined to think that the questions which have to be answered are going to be less difficult in the case of the smaller schools recommended in Scotland than in the very large schools of which we have no previous experience.
In the debate for and against, it always seems to me that the strongest argument for the comprehensive school is that by that means the 11-plus examination might be got rid of. No one likes that examination in itself. The question we have to ask is whether the comprehensive school will get rid of it. I can see that happening if in fact in an area there are nothing but comprehensive schools. But so long as there remain any schools, such as direct grant schools, county grammar schools and so on, to which some parents wish to send their children from the primary schools, I cannot see how some form of 11-plus examination is to be eliminated. Therefore, what would appear at first sight to be the strongest argument in favour breaks down when it is analysed.
The hon. Lady said that more money must be spent on education. More money is being spent on education, but I agree that more must be spent. One of the finest achievements of my right hon. Friend is that during a time of the greatest financial stringency, when it was not certain whether this country could be sure

of its livelihood, she protected the educational system against all those critics who wished to influence her in the direction of cutting a year either at the beginning or at the end of school life.
The period of school attendance has been preserved, the number of places has gone up, the number of teachers has gone up. There is still great progress waiting to be made, however, and the one thing in which I join the hon. Lady is her contention that before long we must have some change in the system of local government finance. I do not see how local education authorities can continue to provide out of the rates the amount of money which will be required, unless there is some alteration in the present Exchequer grant formula.
The hon. Lady will see that I am seeking as wide a measure of agreement with her as I can, and I do not want to end on any contentious note. I hope I have proved to the House that there are hon. Members on this side who are as deeply interested in education and in the children as are hon. Gentlemen opposite, and who are prepared to work as hard, and sacrifice as much, for the good of the children and the teachers and the schools.

5.1 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I am grateful to you. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for allowing me to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), because he and I have so many experiences in common that it has fallen to my lot to notice whither he was leading on this matter of the comprehensive school. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) put it correctly when she said that this party has not made that a matter of party politics.
On the other side of the river, the large council which tries to run London education for the benefit of its children came to the decision that a comprehensive school education system was the right one for the future. In laying down the lines of its development plan, it said that all schools would eventually be comprehensive schools. That plan, however, was timed to take place over a long period. We estimated then 18 years, but it is now much more likely to be 30 years or longer. The hon. Gentleman and his party, in their great desire to see an


experiment, were therefore being given an opportunity to see a long-term experiment.
If in the course of those years the comprehensive school idea falls down, it is obvious that no authority and no Minister will allow it to proceed. It may be that a number of schools are succeeding at the moment because the bulge in the birth rate, the building of new housing estates, etc., make it necessary to provide new schools. It is only right, therefore, if the London County Council is to provide new schools, that they should be on the same principle. So I get a little tired of hearing the party opposite talking constantly about experiments, when that is the most that the London County Council or any other authority is able to do at this time.
Only the other day I listened to the Minister, in answer to a Question about the Bec School, saying that while she had turned down the proposal to enlarge the Bec Grammar School, she had nevertheless approved a proposal to build a comprehensive school in the north of London. It is hardly right of the right hon. Lady to give the impression by such a statement that she is doing one thing with one hand and doing exactly the reverse with the other; that is to say, keeping the schools nicely and evenly weighted, because the school in the north of London has nothing to do with the enlargement or incorporation of any existing grammar school, and it is to be built simply to take in the children of the neighbourhood and will not interfere with any of the eight adjacent grammar schools.
Therefore I suggest, when the Minister gives answers, that she ought not to give such examples, and I hope she will refrain from doing so in the future. The fact of the matter is that in so far as the London plan is concerned, the Minister has approved two comprehensive schools which do not affect grammar schools and has turned down the two comprehensive schools which affect grammar schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, was right when she wanted to know from the Minister, for other areas as well as the London County Council area, what is to be her attitude in all cases where existing grammar schools are concerned.
I imagine the right hon. Lady will be interested to learn that her action in regard to Kidbrook has resulted in enormous propaganda value for the London County Council. It has been an advertisement such as the London County Council could not have contrived for itself. The result has been that up to 20th July 10,000 people—members of the public, local authorities, educational bodies, children and parents—have inspected the building at Kidbrooke. As I think the Minister knows, the reports in the Press are full of eulogy and I doubt whether we should have had such Press reports had it not been for her action. I doubt whether she is happy about it, but I can assure her that we are.
I also want to tell the Minister that in the London area a demand is coming from parents for the comprehensive type of education; so much so, that where we have interim comprehensive schools set up and working in the old buildings, the heads of the schools are being obliged to turn away as many children as they are able to accommodate. I can tell the right hon. Lady also that in the case of one, the neighbouring grammar school has 100 spare places, whereas this particular comprehensive school is overflowing and cannot accommodate all those who wish to come.
I think the Minister knows, too, that throughout the country there is developing in the secondary modern school so-called a desire to have a grammar school side. This is a natural development which has been helped only in the case of London, Coventry and one or two other areas, whereas what is happening in other parts of the country is that the educational authorities who are continuing to build schools catering for the old segregated type of education are going against the stream and in years to come will find themselves in a detrimental position.
Apart from the question of the comprehensive school, the hon. Member for Hampstead spoke about the lack of educational matter in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, but I think he forgot that the entire idea of the comprehensive school is one of educational value. I remember a few days ago reading a letter in one of the


evening papers in which I was extremely interested, because it ran thus:
Of my many contemporary dullards at a fee-paying school I can recall an eminent economist, one director of the largest steel firm in India, three generals, one air commodore and one ex-Attorney-General. None were brainy enough to win scholarships, nor were 99 per cent, of the remainder who, I have no doubt, are doing equally sound jobs of work.
That is the argument in which we who have been teachers believe, and we have been advising our party to go that way.
We have found that the average children, the great bulk of those whom we teach, are almost invariably responsive to teaching and to the educational opportunity given to them. That is what parents who are able to pay fees have found. That is why, as the hon. Member for Hampstead said, the independent schools have a value. Parents can pay to have their children taught in smaller units. We are anxious that the average child should have his or her opportunity. That is why we want to reduce the size of classes and to provide that these children shall have every possible range of course so that they may find their bent and interests.
Since the Education Act of 1944 came into operation, I have been increasingly worried because the opportunities for parents to pay for their children's education have diminished. I appreciate that those who can afford to pay are members of the community and that their children should be educated just as much as anybody else's children. That is why I am concerned that, more and more, the children who go to grammar schools, the key to which is the passing of an entrance examination, are 100 per cent. brainy people.
These schools are becoming schools where children are segregated strictly according to their brain-power. That did not happen in the old maintained and aided grammar schools. It was the normal thing for a large percentage of parents to gain entry for their children by the payment of fees. Those children were average and below-average children, and they helped to make the grammar schools into normal, comprehensive schools.
All these are educational arguments. These are the things that we want. We were told on the wireless today about the shortage of qualified engineers, and yet

there are in the ordinary schools average boys whose abilities could be brought out by proper education and who could very well become qualified engineers. There are in the grammar schools also boys who have passed the common entrance test but who do not take readily to the academic side and do not want to learn for learning's sake. They might well be given a vocational, technical course which might ultimately lead them to science and engineering. We must not leave these sources of great power and ability untapped. We on this side of the House say that the comprehensive schools provide the opportunity whereby we can employ to the fullest extent the capacity of all our children.
I ask the Minister to look also at the question of maintenance grants. Some of us who are keen on education and are teachers try to encourage children to stay in school for a fifth year. In the London area we inaugurated a scale of grants for such pupils. It was a modest scale in those days, a matter of £30 a year where the parental income did not exceed £150. The Minister will realise that £150 was a small sum for all except a widow or someone on retirement or infirmity pay and therefore there were not many cases.
The scale descended until at a parental income of £300 the grant was only £6 a year. At that time the average wage was £5 8s. 6d. a week, and we paid out in 3,421 cases. The number of children in that age group was 8,411, which meant that we were giving a grant in 40 per cent of cases of children who stayed in school over the age of 15 in that year.
The Minister knows that the purchasing power of money has declined and in consequence wages have gone up. The average wage in October was £8 1s. and today, instead of grants being payable in 3,421 cases, only 641 grants are paid and yet there are 11,521 children in the age group. Therefore, the percentage receiving grants today is five instead of 40, and only an infinitesimal sum of money is paid out to help these children.
London County Council has asked the Minister to be allowed to restore grants, and the parental incomes on which they are based, to figures roughly comparable with those which applied when the scheme was inaugurated. The Minister


is showing herself extremely unsympathetic to the idea. I hope that she will not wait very much longer, because all educationists know that there are boys and girls who are very desirous of staying for that extra year of school life but who cannot ask their parents to make the sacrifice when no grant is made towards the cost.
I ask the right hon. Lady to look again at these scales and also at the further scales for pupils of between 16 and 18 years who are suffering from the same difficulties. I ask her to act without waiting for the report of the Departmental Committee which is investigating the question of why so many grammar school children leave before the age of 16. We are concerned with average children and we want to encourage them to stay on and complete their course of study. I hope that the right hon. Lady will do her utmost to restore the old position.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. John Eden: I wish to make only one point in following the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), and that is in agreeing with her that it is time that we reviewed the whole field of secondary education. I wish to review one particular aspect of that large field—that connected with independent schools. I have an interest to declare in this subject. Probably I suffer from two major defects in the eyes of hon. Members opposite. One is that I was educated at what I believe to be the greatest independent school in this country, Eton College. The other defect is that I am at present, and have been for some time, a director of a private school company concerned with the education of 200 children. Therefore, if I make some comments on independent schools, I hope that hon. Members will realise that I do so with some knowledge and experience—albeit limited—in this field. In putting these forward hon. Members on both sides might be prepared to accept them as a somewhat independent view on independent schools.
I have found it difficult to understand why, when hon. Members opposite are fighting an election, they attack independent schools with very great vehemence on the assumption that independent

schools represent today one of the last remaining strongholds of privilege. Indeed, they said in their party paper "Challenge to Britain" that they do not like
The existence of … 'prep' schools, and 'public' schools with small classes and high social prestige.
Yet, when it comes to speaking to a debate such as this, when we are all—myself included—endeavouring to be moderate and constructive in proposing our views, they make a point of referring to the situation in the independent schools with some alarm, saying that they are disturbed about the standard of education and equally disturbed, as was mentioned several times when the Minister was making her statement in the House the other day, about the standard of the teachers in independent schools.
I should like to say one or two things about the standard of teachers and the standard of independent schools. I do not believe that we can expect to increase the standard of any school or the standard of any educational system necessarily by legislation or by standardisation. It seems that I differ from the views of many hon. Members opposite in their assumption that if we either bring all children together into one comprehensive school, or legislate that certain subjects shall be taught otherwise the schools will be closed, we necessarily improve the standard of education.
We obviously must have men and women who have the greatest possible knowledge to teach in all schools. They themselves must be fully educated in that they have had a good background training in the subject they are trying to teach. But it is not only a question of having a diploma. Today nearly everyone seems to demand that before anyone should be allowed, or considered eligible, to teach children he should have a particular certificate or diploma as having achieved a certain standard. That is very desirable, but it is not the whole story.
What we now tend to ignore is the fact that not only do teachers need to have considerable knowledge, but they also need to have considerable character. They must be able to put across to their children the knowledge they have and be able to understand the workings of a child's mind. I believe very strongly that


there is too much accent today on standardisation and the belief that we can achieve some remarkable degree of equality merely by legislating for it. I do not believe any more that we can have standardised schools than that we can have standardised teachers. In view of what the Minister said on 1st July in this House, when referring to the introduction of Part III of the Education Act by May, 1957, or as near as possible, we are moving forward to a period in the history of education in this country when we shall gradually do away with independent schools. As far as I understand it, we are trying to move towards a system whereby no schools will be tolerated unless a certain agreed minimum standard is maintained in that school. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] Many hon. Members on all sides of the House obviously think that extremely desirable. I think it is desirable only insofar as we should expect a high standard; I do not think it is desirable that we should demand a high standard.
If we are hoping to preserve a wide freedom of choice for the individual parent in selecting the school to which he wishes to send his child, there should be the choice, such as now, of comprehensive schools, grammar schools, secondary modern schools and also independent schools. This free selection should continue. I do not see why we should aim at bringing all these different schools and ways of education into one comprehensive school and doing away with the independent schools, which have given so much towards the education of the children of the country.
No more than standardised schools or standardised teachers can we have standardised pupils. I would stress that every individual is born with different qualities and different gifts. Every effort must be made to draw out from the child the particular qualities or gifts with which the child is born. That is the whole purpose of education, and that is what the very word means—to draw out.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Sixty in a class.

Mr. Eden: It is extremely important that we should appreciate that, since we have children of varying degrees of competence, varying degrees of skill, gifts and qualities, we cannot possibly hope either to level them all down or to level

them all up, because they are different entities. Therefore, the greatest degree of competition we can possibly have in the educational system is to the advantage of the children whom we are trying to educate. That is why I am firmly convinced that we must maintain the present free system of independent schools and of enabling parents to exercise their right of choice in sending their children to the schools they think fit for them.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: How does the hon. Member relate that to the parents with very little money, or none at all?

Mr. Eden: We wish the parents with limited means to be able to send their children to the local schools within their particular area so far as possible. In advocating this point of view for the independent school, I am not in any way trying to say that we should have only independent schools. I should like to see the standard of education in the State schools raised to the same level as now exists in independent schools. Then we could get full equality of opportunity such as hon. Members opposite want.

Mr. Mellish: How can a docker with three children, who is earning £7 a week, hope to send his child to one of these independent schools, however good that child may be?

Mr. Eden: The answer is that the State is concerning itself with trying to provide an equally good system of education for the children of those parents who cannot themselves afford to send their children to a fee-paying school. That is the whole purpose of State education. That is the reason why we—on both sides of the House—believe in this system. But that is not an excuse, because we believe in that, to destroy something which we already have, which is extremely worth while, namely, first-class independent schools which are saving the taxpayer money and also producing children who are well educated and have a wide outlook on the problems of the world.
We have heard a great deal in this debate about the large sums of money now being spent. It is spent on buildings, on transporting children from home to school and back again, etc. We all know extraordinary cases of this sort of thing where a child could easily cycle to school, but a bus is provided for him. We have all


heard of many cases such as that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] In a village in Hampshire. I shall send the hon. Member details not only of that case but of a considerable number of others, if he will kindly apply to me later.
As we are spending large sums of money on education, a sum which is constantly increasing under the auspices of the present Administration, which we welcome, it is all the more important we should make quite certain that we are getting value for the money we are spending. I do not believe that we can necessarily judge that value by the standard of glorious new buildings, by the amenities which children have or the beauty of their surroundings. The right way to judge the value we are getting for money is by the standard of education which is now being given; how well educated are the children who are now going through the system; and do we accept the fact that all this money now being spent is well spent when it is reported that there is an increasingly higher standard of illiteracy in this country today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] I must draw attention to these facts, because certainly when we spend money on such a large scale as we are spending it today on a system of education, we must be absolutely certain that we are getting full value for it.

Mr. W. T. Williams: The hon. Member is saying that it is a fact that illiteracy has increased in this country. Has he any evidence of it on which he is basing that statement?

Mr. Eden: I ask the hon. Member if he will kindly refer later to the report of what I did say. So far as my memory goes, I asked, "Are we prepared to accept the spending of these sums of money when it is reported that there is now an increasing state of illiteracy?" I am merely asking that question and I am asking on the basis of various reports which are available. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to last Sunday's "Observer," in which there was a small article referring to the teaching of reading to children today. If the hon. Member will read the first paragraph of that article he will see that my rhetorical question—or direct question—was not completely unsupported by outside evidence.
I feel very strongly that the quality of education which our children are now getting in the State-aided and State schools is nothing like high enough. There is a tendency today to concentrate on the aptitude-test type of education, on the practical type of education of requiring children to go and dig in the sand or play with some bricks or something of that sort. There is very little accent today on the training of the minds of children, and it is in the training of the mind that the most important field of education exists.
I do not think at all—

Sir Frederick Messer: Hear, hear.

Mr. Eden: —that there is a very good prospect for the children of this country if we continue to ignore the training of the mind which can be given through the teaching of poetry and the teaching of classics; also, we must not ignore the teaching of history, English history in particular. I do not for a moment say that the training of the mind is being ignored wholesale throughout the State schools and is only being appreciated in independent schools. I only say that there is a tendency in all education today to lean towards the practical side of teaching, towards what I call the operational side of teaching, and for there to be a little less emphasis on the old system of the Three Rs and the mental training which is the real basis of education.
Hon. Members opposite have frequently shown themselves extremely concerned about the desirability of certain teachers in the independent schools. When the Minister made her statement on 1st July about independent schools there were a number of questions put to her asking that certain undesirable teachers should not be allowed to carry on their work in independent schools. Those questions did not only refer to one specific aspect of undesirability; they referred by and large to teachers in independent schools who had not particular diplomas or particular qualifications or certain certificates such as are possessed by other teachers who have been through training colleges, etc.
I should like to ask hon. Members, before they attack a system such as that of the independent schools, which is


working well and producing good results, to look, first, to the standard of teaching which exists in the State schools. I would go further. If hon. Members think that there are many undesirable teachers in independent schools, I would remind them that some hon. Members also think occasionally that there are undesirable teachers in the State schools. It would be a much better principle to put that system right first.
For example, there are undesirable teachers and undesirable teachers; and one type of undesirable teacher which I do not like to see tolerated in State schools is the teacher who is definitely a Communist, who is politically biased to the extreme Left and who uses his particular office to promulgate policies and beliefs and to influence the minds of children in policies and beliefs which are wholly unacceptable to the people of this country.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): The hon. Member has made a very serious accusation against the teaching profession of this country. Will he now be perfectly honest and quote to this House one single case in which that has occurred?

Mr. Eden: First let me dispel any fears which the hon. Member might have had in assuming that I was making an accusation against the teaching profession. I have been extremely careful to say that while many hon. Members may like to think that there are undesirable teachers in independent schools, there are some, who include myself, who think that there are certain undesirable teachers in State schools. I was in no way making any attack whatever on the general standard or qualifications of teachers in the whole State system of education.
If the hon. Member wants one specific instance, I will give it. I do not wish in any way to overstep the bounds of Privilege, and being a new Member of this House I am not competent to judge how far I can go in this particular instance. I should like to assure hon. Members that I have the complete chapter and verse of this particular case and I should be prepared to give it to hon. Members who are interested. I know the complete history of this case, and after the debate is over I shall be glad to give it.

Mr. Short: I will wait for the hon. Member outside the Chamber after the debate is over to receive the particulars, to give them to the national Press.

Mr. George Thomas: Before the hon. Member continues, may I ask if he has considered the advisability of giving his information to the Minister earlier on? Is he further aware that it is not our job, as hon. Members of this House, to be a "Gestapo" over anyone?

Mr. Eden: I am conscious—

Mr. Skeffington: But only just.

Mr. Eden: I was confident that the remarks that I made would not be wholly acceptable to some hon. Members opposite, and I was careful to make quite certain that, if necessary, I could support what I said with facts. Having inquired of one or two of my hon. Friends, I am now only too anxious to give details to the House about which school I was referring to; and in doing so I am perfectly aware that my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, have had details of this particular case for some considerable time.

Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order. Since the hon. Gentleman is about to name a school which is bound to suffer —and all the members of the staff of that school are bound to suffer—is it within your discretion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to ask him to exercise a little care?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It is not a point of order. We are completely privileged here, and the hon. Member may say anything he likes.

Mr. Thomas: Can you ask him to—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden) is privileged to say anything he likes in this Chamber.

Sir William Darling: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden) was making this statement in reply to a direct challenge to name the school.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no point of order. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West is entitled to continue.

Mr. Eden: I have no desire to press this matter in open debate. But if hon. Members opposite persist in bringing this challenge, and are not prepared to accept my word that I know of this specific instance, and that it is one which has been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend; if they insist that I should name this particular school, I have no alternative but to do so. The school to which I am referring is the Acton County School for boys, where the headmaster is a known member of the Communist Party; has frequently spoken at Communist sponsored meetings, and is primarily responsible for promulgating—in conjunction with some members of his staff, but by no means all—Communist ideologies and Communist ideas. I am extremely sorry, but I hope—

Sir F. Messer: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see how any point of order can arise.

Sir F. Messer: The point of order is this. Is it right for the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden) to mention a school in connection with the subject to which he is now referring without stating that this matter has been investigated by the county council which is the education authority concerned—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Sir F. Messer: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, how can you know that it is not a point of order until you have heard it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have heard enough to know that it is not a point of order.

Mr, Eden: I have little more to say—

Miss Bacon: rose—

Mr. Eden: I cannot give way any more. There are other hon. Members who wish to speak, and I am trying to bring my remarks to a conclusion in order to allow hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to answer the points which I have raised.

Miss Bacon: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make accusations about what a teacher has done in school and then to offer no evidence—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are privileged in this Chamber. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will permit me, I will now bring my remarks to a conclusion. I absolutely agree that one should never generalise about any issue and that is what I have been careful not to do. I merely say that in trying to right whatever wrongs there may be in our educational system in this country I would ask hon. Members opposite to appreciate that not all the wrongs exist in the independent schools; and that they should first look at the State schools and try to make that system of education work well before attacking and destroying something else which is extremely valuable in this country.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden) said at the commencement of his speech that he had two major defects. Having listened to his speech, I am certain that he was modest in his claim. Apart from that, I think that we have just witnessed in a debate on education what I would call "smear tactics," a practice which seems to be growing not only in our own country, but in other parts of the world. I think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, who has made his first contribution to a debate on education in this House, ought to be ashamed of himself. When he reads the report of his speech tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I hope that he will decide to keep his mouth closed during future debates on education so long as he represents a Bournemouth constituency.
I think that it was a dreadful smear to say something about a man's political activities. In our community a man has a perfect right to be a Communist. He has a perfect right to be an anti-Communist, outside—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Or a Freemason.

Mr. Peart: He has a perfect right to to be a Conservative or a member of the Labour Party. Of course, he has no right to indoctrinate children with certain theories. One of the charges made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West against the headmaster of this particular school is that he indulged in political activities outside—

Sir F. Messer: May I interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) to ask if he is aware that the authority concerned investigated this case and found that there was no evidence of any indoctrination of children?

Hon. Members: Withdraw. Be a man.

Mr. Peart: It is obvious that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has not the courage to stand up and apologise and withdraw his remarks, especially when a responsible statement has been made by a member of the authority concerned. I think that we may leave it that the hon. Member, who is a product of the expensive school which he mentioned, is thoroughly ashamed of himself.
Let us now turn to the debate, and from the interlude by a product of an expensive independent school. I wish to concentrate on the Ministerial policy as it affects the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). She was charged with introducing politics into this debate. I think that was the view of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) who spoke immediately after her. It is a rather strange doctrine that if one approves of the Minister of Education, one is being non-political, but if one opposes vigorously her policy, then one is introducing politics into our debate.
I will not go into the details mentioned by my hon. Friend in her excellent speech. I repeat what I have said previously. I believe the Minister is a grey shadow over the educational system; the Parliamentary Secretary is just a shadow. The Minister has consistently created an atmosphere which has harmed the educational system. Circulars 242 and 245 and the Minister's attitude towards adult education, which was challenged in this House, are instances of the policy which has been pursued for the past few years. It is accepted in the educational world that the present Administration has created an atmosphere which has worked against the true interests of the schools and of the profession. It will be a good day for the educational world when there is a change in the Administration.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) talked about the Minister's

critics. Many of those critics are members of the Conservative Party. The hon. Member referred to those who would have cut the school age. Surely he has read the Conservative pamphlet "One Nation." to which the Chancellor has written a preface, in which there is a suggestion that the difficulties facing the educational world should be met by a cut in the school age. Surely the hon. Member has read the speeches of his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) who, in this House, advocated a cut in the school age. Surely hon. Members opposite remember Lord Waverley, when a leading figure in the Conservative Opposition, chiding the Labour Government for raising the school age. The critics have all along been members of the Conservative Party, and time and time again they have suggested that the Labour Government should not raise the school leaving age and they now advocate a cut in the school age in order to meet the difficulty of overcrowding in school.

Mr. Christopher Hollis: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) is not in the Chamber, might I say that I am certain that he never advocated a cut in the school age. He said that if it was found necessary to cut, he would prefer it to be done in the first year rather than the last year.

Mr. Peart: I am glad to hear that what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, South was prefaced by an "if," but I was under the impression that the hon. Member advocated a cut as a solution to the problem if the Minister had to face the difficulties in relation to steel, finance and other resources which operated in 1952. Conservative Members of another place time and time again advocated a cut in the school age.
There are many children in many parts of the country who are unable to get places at the age of five because of overcrowding. I sent my small boy to a new L.C.C. school, and that is already overcrowded. That is a measure of the urgency of the problem. I am glad that my hon. Friend focussed attention on the 1953 Report; it shows that there has been an increase in overcrowding in schools. For that reason, there is no ground for complacency if we are to make a real attack on the problem.
I want to concentrate on the field of technical education. I believe that the Government have been complacent. The Chancellor recently announced proposals for giving assistance to certain technical colleges. Although the Minister of Education has no direct responsibility for the University Grants Committee, I wish we could have some specific information about the direct financial assistance to be given to higher technical education. We ought to have something more than the vague statement that we were given. I admit that it was difficult for the Chancellor to give details, but he promised that we should be given more detailed information.
I hope the Minister will give us some information about the policy of her Department and the Government for this important part of education. I know that in 1952 the Minister issued Circular 255 and that there were increased grants up to 75 per cent, for approved courses in technical education, but in view of the Chancellor's statement we ought to have something more specific. We ought also to know whether or not the policy of the Government has changed and whether or not the Government will really seek to give university status to some of the technical colleges which have been mentioned. It is important to have a decision on this matter. After all, many committees have reported. We have had the Select Committee, and we have had a series of reports from private committees. We have also had important reports from the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. It has just issued a report on higher technological education.
We ought to know what the Government's policy is. Will there be an improvement in status? I welcome the assistance which has been mentioned, but I want to know the amount of it. It is not sufficient just to give grants for approved courses. I want more money spent on building in relation to technical colleges. I want the recommendations of the Select Committee implemented.
What is the Minister going to do about technical education in relation to the Select Committee's 12th Report which we had in July, 1953? I am sorry that we have not had a full debate on it. I know that the Minister and her Department have replied to the recommenda-

tions, but I should like to know what they are really going to do about technical education. Is the Department really going to implement the findings of the Select Committee? The findings were carefully surveyed by a committee, and I have no doubt that they have been carefully studied by the Department. However, as yet, I see no development.
To take the first recommendation, has the Ministry decided to re-examine the problem of building in instalments with a view to eliminating to the maximum extent the financial loss involved? That was the Select Committee's first recommendation. What is the Department going to do about it? The appendix to the 15th Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, which indicates the Minister's policy is certainly not adequate.
What about the other recommendation that the Minister should consider the suggestion that money for technical colleges should be allocated to local authorities on a five-year basis? Can we have some information about the Ministry's policy in that respect? May I know how much will be allocated for technical education this year? Various committees tell us over and over again that we are lagging behind in this matter. The Report on higher technological education published by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee shows how we are lagging behind many European countries and America in this field.
After all, it is an important matter, and we should have an indication of the Government's policy about it. It is a matter which goes beyond the field of education; it is a matter which affects industry. If we are to win the trade battle, we must have more craftsmen and technicians. If we are to develop the Colonial Territories, we must have a greater supply of technicians and experts, geologists and agricultural scientists. These are the people we need if we are to develop those territories and if we are to win our economic battles. Therefore, this is not a matter to be dealt with purely from the educational point of view, but something which concerns our general economic future, and I think it is important that the Minister should give us today an indication of the Government's policy and should tell us what the Government are to do about implementing the Report of the Select Committee.
I compliment my hon. Friends who sat on that Committee, as well as hon. Members opposite. I only wish that they had taken a wider survey of technical education, because I am certain that we are not pursuing the proper policy in this respect. If we examine the tendencies in the wider field of technical education, we can see that there are still grave defects. After the war, the Percy Committee, which investigated the subject of higher technological education, thought that, through the Education Act, 1944, we should build up a great system of modern secondary technical education. We know that has not been done, and we know the reasons why.
I think we can see where the emphasis was placed from the figures given to me by the Minister herself in reply to a Question which I asked her on 22nd February this year, when I asked for the present distribution of children aged 11 and over in the secondary grammar, technical and modern schools, respectively. The figures she gave me were these: secondary grammar, 511,008; technical, only 79,194; and modern schools, 1,133,488. So we can see that the ideals that were envisaged by the Percy Committee in its Report, which placed such emphasis on the Education Act, 1944, have not been realised. There has been no extension of technical education in the secondary field. I believe that the Government should concentrate on this, although I am not suggesting that we should build immediately new tech-
nical schools—

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I think it is an exaggeration to say that there has been none, because in many of the best of our secondary modern schools a good part of the education is technical. I do not say that it is completely satisfactory, but a great deal of technical education is being given in secondary modern schools.

Mr. Peart: I think my hon. Friend mistook what I said. I said that the new secondary modern technical school has not developed. The secondary technical school was expected to develop from the old junior technical school, and it has not done so. Therefore, I am suggesting that the Government should encourage more and more emphasis on technical education in our secondary modern

schools, in our comprehensive schools and even in our grammar schools.
I believe that there is too much emphasis in the grammar school on the more formal side of education. For example, there is too much emphasis on pure science, as distinct from applied science. This is a serious problem, because it is related to the supply of technologists. Time and again, committees have surveyed this problem and have argued that we must tackle it now in the school. We must have more children in the grammar schools reading applied science and going on to the universities to take the various technological courses which the universities provide.
I hope we shall try to encourage a technical bias more and more in our new schools, and certainly in our comprehensive schools. I wish we had more technical facilities—the provision of more facilities for technical education on the ground floor, so that these schools will feed the various colleges and universities which provide technological education. In that way, we shall be making a contribution to the improvement of our trade and helping towards a solution of our economic problems by improving or increasing the bias towards technical education in the various institutions that we have.
The Minister has announced a policy which I mentioned in relation to the technical colleages and various grants given to them, and consideration has been given by the Select Committee to the national colleges. I see that there is to be a new national college of technology this year. I hope that this process will continue and that the Minister will constantly review the matter. I hope that the position of the Imperial College of Science will be improved, and that we will certainly use it as a national college to provide these expert technologists we require in various fields of industry. There must be no slackening in this field. There must be a higher proportion of our financial resources now used for education diverted for the purpose of technical education. I am quite prepared to argue that if it comes to a point at which we have to make a decision as to priorities or the allocation of resources I would certainly advocate that we should now concentrate on technical education, in view of the need to expand our economy and develop our industrial efficiency.
My last point is something quite different. We have been told today that we are to have a large experiment in the use of television in our schools, and I understand that 77 local authorities have agreed to co-operate. A resolution was passed recently by the Conference of the Association of Education Committees in support of this proposal. I trust the Minister will watch the use of television in the schools. I know that education has lost the battle in the field of commercial television, and I am sorry that the Minister of Education has condoned the action of her Government in that direction. I think that commercial television is a potential menace to the community, but also I believe that even publicly controlled television can be a menace if it is not watched properly. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Lady will watch very carefully the use of television in our schools.
I confess that I am alarmed at the effect which television has in the wider field of education. I have been reading a most interesting book by Dr. Ernest Green, entitled "Adult Education: Why this Apathy?" The book contains an educational survey which has been carried out by various adult bodies, and, here and there, we see already how television has affected liberal studies provided by adult education. It may well be that, if we use it properly, it will encourage such studies, but I hope that the Minister will watch it, because I think it is important, and she will certainly need to watch the quality of the programmes.
Children's television is very good, and the programmes are much better than the adult programmes provided by the B.B.C., but, even so, I think it must be watched, because there is a great danger in the wider field that it may make people become placid spectators of a machine which provides them with entertainment, whether it be publicly controlled or commercial.
After all, what is the purpose of education? What are we really seeking to do in our desire to improve our schools? Even though we may have political differences, we are trying to provide a system which will enable the products of that system to think for themselves and become gracious men and women living in a democracy. Therefore, I believe that television can be a menace, because

it can create an uncritical mind, a passive mind, and it can create a mind which accepts irresponsibility and which runs away from responsibility. In that sense, it can be very harmful to our modern democracy.
I have tried over and over again to emphasise this aspect of education as something which both sides of this House must watch carefully. We must watch this growth of centralised propaganda, this seeking to capture the minds of people who passively accept. Make no mistake; if our democracy is lazy in that sense, it is doomed. For that reason, our educational system should be an intellectual barrier against this propaganda. Therefore, the Minister of Education should be most active in surveying carefully these new instruments which are intruding themselves very vigorously into our school life. She must watch carefully the experiments of each local authority, and, if necessary, she must take action if she feels that any experiment can harm the community by creating that unthinking mentality which is so disastrous to democratic thought and action.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I think most hon. Gentlemen on this side will agree with the concluding remarks made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in regard to television. The hon. Gentleman has deployed one of the principal arguments against having only one system of television and in favour of our Television Bill.
This is the first time in the nine years during which I have had the honour to be a Member of this House, that I have ventured to try to take part in a debate on education. I am not a pundit on education. My experience has been limited to being manager of a small village school, although I am proud of having some teaching in the blood. Having decided to attempt to speak in this debate, I have been agreeably surprised to find what a lively debate it has been. My recollection of the debates on education to which I have listened in the past, is that they were confined much more to the technicalities of education and very much less to polemics between the parties. I do not wish to carry on those polemics. I want to go straight on to the technicalities.
One of the most important things to bear in mind, in order to follow the present situation in education, is the subtle distinction between an all-age school and a comprehensive school. They both seem to me to cater for children between the ages of five and 15; but at the comprehensive school it is still later. There is an attempt in both those types of school, to divide the children into classes according to the number of teachers available for the subjects that have to be taught. I concede a point to the Opposition. I have no doctrinal prejudice against comprehensive schools. I suppose I was at what may be described as a "comprehensive" school. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which was that?"] I was at Oundle, which had not only the public-school range of ages from 14 to 19, but also a preparatory school, where the ages ranged from nine to 14. There we had a comprehensive school. There is no doubt about it.
It is, however, no use trying suddenly to create comprehensive schools by bulldozing away other schools, which are to some extent comprehensive in themselves, like some of the grammar schools which have been mentioned here this afternoon. It is no use removing good existing schools merely to make a big, new comprehensive school. Let us be fair to the Minister. Her position has been made clear. She too has no doctrinal prejudice against the comprehensive school, but she sees the dangers if she sanctions a comprehensive school every time a request is made to her.
The all-age school is essentially a rural problem. Mine is essentially a rural constituency, and I have a small criticism to offer. One cannot glean this from the Report; but I guess that my constituency is at a bigger disadvantage than any other rural area in regard to all-age schools. There is nothing in the Report to show this, and I can only go by my own observations; and such as I can glean from other people. So far as the nation-wide situation is concerned, the Report, speaking of village schools generally, says, in paragraph 14, page 8:
At the same time these schools may suffer from a number of serious disadvantages. More than a quarter of them are still all-age schools, so that two or three teachers, and not infrequently one, must try to do justice to the needs of 10 age groups, with the problems of satisfactory classification that they present. This is a challenge to the skill and adaptability

of the teachers to which many rise with distinction.
We all know of examples of teachers in village schools who rose with distinction. They have done so for generations. The Report goes on:
It may well be asked whether it is a task that the average teacher can reasonably be expected to achieve successfully.
Let us acknowledge that, in spite of honest endeavour by Socialist Governments and three years of still greater endeavour by my right hon. Friend, there are two main weaknesses in our present educational system. One is that in the rural areas we have too many all-age classes and the other is that in urban areas we have too much overcrowding. What is the result on the minds of the people living in rural areas? They know something about the overcrowding in the towns, but they have it firmly fixed in their heads that teaching is better in the towns because there are fewer all-age schools.
What shall we do about this problem? Are we to go on pouring all the money we can into improving the situation in the towns and making education there still more attractive by overcoming the overcrowding? That is one way of doing it, but what will happen? We shall entice people still further from the country to the town. Country people will near of more money being spent on the town schools, of classes being reduced in size and more comprehensive schools being built, while there is no change in the villages. The drift from the country to the town will be aggravated, if that process goes on.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that she should concentrate to a much greater extent than has been done so far, either by herself or by her predecessors, on reorganisation of schools in the villages. I believe I shall have the backing of all hon. Members representing rural constituencies in making that suggestion. The problem has been the subject of special study quite recently by the Association of Education Authorities, which has made a survey. It has come to the conclusion that the cost of completing rural reorganisation is between £15 million and £20 million of capital expenditure. They have suggested that, if that money was spread over five years, and we spent between £3 million and £4 million a year, the reorganisation would be complete and the task would be completed.
It may be that to do it just like that would be asking either for too much money to be diverted from the towns—although I would have no hesitation at all in doing so—or for too much money to be provided for education as a whole. I am one of those who believe in an overall economy in expenditure, so I would rather see the money diverted from the towns.
I am quite sure that we shall be working in a vicious circle, if we go on increasing the number of places in the towns and go on enticing people from the villages to the towns. By doing that, we merely fill up the increased places which we provide. What we should do is to stop the trouble at its beginning, which is that the village schools have not yet been sufficiently reorganised. In my constituency alone—I know that it is only a very small county—we need seven new secondary modern schools.
I really think that my right hon. Friend has got to do some fresh thinking about this, because, otherwise, the drift from the land will go on. I do not say that merely on the vague ground that the drift from the land is bad and should be halted, but because I believe most passionately that the future wellbeing of this country depends to a great extent, not upon the townspeople, but upon the country people. If the country people go down, the country as a whole goes down.
This is a social and moral problem of the very highest importance, and the foundation of its solution is better education in the villages. That can only be achieved by getting on with the reorganisation, which, if necessary, I suggest, must be attained at the expense of providing new places in the towns. I have no hesitation in saying this, and I do not apologise for saying it, whatever any urban Member may say.

Mr. Swingler: When the hon. Gentleman talks about diverting money from the towns to the country, is he aware that that is not really the proper way to put it, because many urban authorities are only too anxious that such money should be spent on rural reorganisation owing to the fact that they have to find the places for the village children, which aggravates their overcrowding? Therefore, by spending the money on rural reorganisation, it

would relieve some of the urban authorities of part of the overcrowding.

Mr. Renton: I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has emphasised and clarified a point which I was trying to make three or four minutes ago. I am glad that I have him on my side. I hope that I have made the matter sufficiently clear to enable me to pass from it to one or two points to which, though I attach less importance to them. I wish to refer.
First, there is the burning question of grammar school masters. There is no doubt that, unless grammar school masters are given the consideration to which their—let us face it—superior status entitles them, and which they require, we shall not get as many of them as the hon. Member for Workington would like to see, if he is to get the technical education for which he is asking and which, in the main, can only be got in the grammar schools.
The grammar school masters have undoubtedly a feeling—justified or otherwise —of grievance at the moment, in that when their salaries and conditions of service are being negotiated they are lumped in with other secondary school teachers so far as their representation on the Burnham Committee is concerned. I cannot see why they should not have separate representation. Unless somebody is playing a sort of empire building game against them, I do not see why they should not have separate representation.
I now wish to refer to another matter which the Report, so it seems to me, appears to miss out. There is Provision under the Education Act for scholarships to be provided by education authorities to the public schools, including the very best public school's. Indeed, I believe that the head boy at Harrow not very long ago was such a boy who had won a State scholarship to the school. I maintain that our public schools are without the slightest shadow of doubt the best in the world, and I should like to see more use made by local authorities in the provision of such scholarships. After all, this is a matter for them and not for the Minister.
However, unless we have a little bit of publicity in the form of something in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Education showing how this process is going on, it is not very easy to make


local authorities conscious of their obligation in the matter. If only to show how few boys are getting these scholarships, I hope that in the current year something along these lines will be said.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the Education Act, 1944, which was an all-party Measure, was given the great opportunity of being put into operation immediately after the war. So far, apart from what I think was a highly regrettable speech by an otherwise very worthy Member of this House, the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) today, we have mostly managed to keep party politics out of this subject. It is better that we should.

Mr. F. Blackburn: What about the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke)?

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) was only making a justified retort to the hon. Lady. If we can keep politics out of this matter, it is much better. I speak with great humility, because I have not spoken before in any general debate on education. With that in mind, may I concede another point in agreeing with an hon. Member opposite? I think that the time has come for us to think once more about this final, fateful decision, which has to be made for every child at the age of 11, in the matter of State education. I must say, looking back over the years, that, if I had had to make that decision, or, worse still, had had to have it made for me, I should not relish what might have happened. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country now have to have that decision made for them.
It bears hardest of all upon the children of men serving in the Forces, the regular sailors, soldiers and airmen. As they move around doing their duty to their country, they have to take the schools as they find them. A child can be put back very badly before the age of 11, and it is most unfortunate that the children of serving men should have to suffer through no fault of their own.
Then there are the others of us who develop late in life. I was always told that I was one such person. Perhaps even now I have not developed enough; but there it is. I say most seriously, in a non-party and non-contentious spirit, that

after 10 years of the administration of the 1944 Act the time has come for fresh thinking on this fundamental matter.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. W. G. Cove: I am sure that all hon. Members on this side of the House agree with the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) in his appreciation of the value of rural schools. We also agree with his view concerning the reorganisation that should take place in the rural areas throughout the country. Having expressed that view I would invite him tonight to walk into the Lobby with us against this Minister.
As a matter of fact the Minister has laid down conditions which will prevent the reorganisation of schools in the rural areas. If the hon. and learned Member will look at Circular 245 he will see this phrase in a document which is an instruction to rural authorities:
The Minister will, therefore, still be unable to include in an annual building programme any work designed:—…(c) to enable all-age schools to be reorganised.
She is there putting on a bar against the reorganisation of our schools. We all agree that the 1944 Act cannot be put into effect at all unless we have reorganisation; it cannot be put into effect except on the basis of all-age schools. In Circular 245 the Minister has laid down conditions which completely prevent that reorganisation in the rural areas or anywhere else.
I have been here for many years. I have seen Ministers come and Ministers go. I say quite definitely that it is time for the right hon. Lady to go. I have looked at statements in the Press, I have looked at the Press of the education authorities and at the teacher's Press. I have reviewed copies of "Education" for many a week. I cannot find—particularly in the official organ of the education authorities—one single word of praise or commendation for the right hon. Lady in the job which she is doing. She has the confidence neither of the local authorities nor of the teachers. The superannuation scheme decimated any faith or belief which the teachers had in her integrity. I do not want to quote too much from the official journal "Education," but in the issue of 11th June it states:
The Minister's report for 1953 tries hard to be a record of progress. That it fails in


that is no fault of the draughtsman. It is because the material available does not lead to that conclusion.
Here I am being non-political, and Dr. Alexander is non-political, but he has nothing but criticism for the school building programme and the programme for technical education. His views are non-political. They are concerned only with education as such. I do not want to read the resolution which was passed at the conference of education authorities but it was completely condemnatory of the right hon. Lady's policy. I could find no single word of commendation for her policy. Indeed, Alderman Robinson said in his speech that though he was a Conservative and supported the political policies of this Government he did not support their educational policy. He said he had no trust in that at all.
It seems to me, therefore, that if it is true that there is to be reshuffling in the Government it may be for the benefit of the nation and for the benefit of education that the right hon. Lady should go. I am sorry to say this, but it is how I feel, and I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I have listened to the Minister's Conservative friends. I am not quite sure whether even her Conservative friends strongly support her. I do not think that she ever recovered from the blunder she made upstairs. I say honestly and frankly that she has decimated faith and hope inside the educational system, into which the dry rot of educational administration is eating.
Is it thought that by turning down Kidbrooke and Tooting Bec schemes the right hon. Lady gained the confidence of the local authority? What becomes of the responsibility of local authorities. There is a clause in Circular 144 which states that there should not be duplication within a local catchment area of the same type of education unless there are special considerations. What are the special considerations that have caused the right hon. Lady to turn down Kidbrooke and Tooting Bee? The considerations are not educational but political.
Finally, I warn her and her hon. Friends behind her in regard to the comprehensive school. I do not want to argue the merits of the comprehensive school except to say that it is the only medium

by which the lower and middle classes can get the normal child educated beyond the age of 15. I was impressed the other day by a case of a bank cashier whom I know. Under the 1944 Act his two boys had to pass an examination to get into the grammar school. They were not brilliant boys, but they were normal. They were worth further education, but they could not pass the examination. His sons having failed the examination at 11 plus the cashier's choice was to send them to either a secondary modern school or a private school.
It may seem strange for me, a Socialist, to talk like this but I think that the burden on middle class—and particularly lower middle class parents—in educating their children in private schools is too heavy, too costly to bear. The comprehensive school is the answer to the development of the normal child. We stand firm on the right of the normal child, with varying capacities and aptitudes, to be given his or her chance by admission. I say quite frankly to the right hon. Lady that, owing to political prejudice, she is standing in the way of the development and opportunities of the normal child.
I hate quoting in this House, because it takes too long, but I must quote one paragraph at the end of an article in the "Schoolmaster":
The whole sorry business really seems to resolve itself into this: is the government of public education to be by co-operation, consultation and agreement between all the partners concerned, including parents, or is it to be at the beck and call of local agitation?
The cases of Eltham and Kidbrooke have been the cause of local agitation. Therefore, taking the picture as a whole, I say that it is time that the right hon. Lady left her position and that somebody with more imagination, more dynamism and more idealism took her place.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: I do not hold any decided views about comprehensive schools. I should like them to prove their value, as, indeed, the value of the longer established schools has been proved.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said that many middle-class parents—and he quoted a cashier at a bank—had no choice if their children


failed the examination to go to a grammar school. Many parents have come to see me on this. Of course, finance is a difficult problem for the parent with two or three children who are about to reach the age of 11, but that reinforces the plea which we on these benches have made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a tax allowance to be made to parents who wish to send their children to approved independent schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know perfectly well from the parents who come to see me that this would solve the problem for some.
I want to reinforce what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) said about the position in the rural areas, particularly with regard to secondary school facilities. The whole of the rural community is united on this point. Until the other day I had never seen a joint deputation from the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the Transport and General Workers' Union. I had the pleasure of being in the chair when those three bodies, which are so often opposed to each other, came together to plead with Members of Parliament that the Minister of Education should give greater equality of opportunity to rural children.
The reckoning put to us the other day —and I would ask the Minister whether this is a true reckoning, because I cannot find the figures in any departmental publication—was that one child in 12 in the town areas did not have an opportunity of secondary education whereas in the rural areas one child in three still did not have that opportunity and had to continue at an all-age school.
I have made some inquiries in my county of Berkshire about the progress that we are making in the reorganisation of our schools and as to how long it will be before every child in the county, which is a fair mix between town and country, will have the opportunity of going to a secondary school. It will be several years before that opportunity comes to all the children in Berkshire. We are building now secondary schools, and I suppose that our progress is in line with that of other counties, but if we look to see where those schools are being sited, we find that they are being built in the town areas where there is the

greatest pressure for places. What effect does that have on the rural parent—on the farm worker and his wife or a man like my gardener and his wife, who have children approaching the age of 11? If they do not succeed in passing the examination into the grammar school they are expected today to continue at the same school from the age of five until 15.
I know that extra buildings are being provided, but if a child stays at the same school there is not that psychological life which the parents and the child have a right to expect at the age of 11. I believe that it is important for the child to move on and not to be travelling in the same bus with the same children, to school under the same headmaster from five right on to 15. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider this problem sympathetically. We in the rural areas are most anxious that parents in the villages should not feel that they must move into or near the towns in order to obtain proper educational facilities for their children. They have just the same rights as those in the towns; they pay just the same rates and taxes.
I know from talking to schoolmasters and mistresses that they feel there should be provision for more secondary modern and secondary technical schools, not only in the towns but deliberately placed in rural areas. More of the existing schools which are sound structurally might very well be turned into secondary schools to take the 11-plus children from the neighbouring villages.
I would ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the amount of money that she allows the counties to spend, particularly to ensure that the rural children are at least getting as fair a chance as the town children. We need fully educated children in modern agriculture, and the same is true of the many other industries sited in rural areas; at least, that is so in my constituency. For our technical advance in the rural areas, notably in farming, we are depending more and more on a sound education. If our children have to remain in all-age schools, we shall not be giving them as good an opportunity as they deserve.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I agree with what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said, with one exception. I think that if there


were any proposal by the Government to give some form of tax relief to enable people to send their children to private schools, it would receive criticism not only from these benches but also from educational circles generally. If a child has sufficient ability to pass the selective test, he can receive a grammar school education at the public expense, and if he has not sufficient ability then a place is offered to him to enable him to receive an education suitable to his aptitude and his abilities at the modern secondary school.
To enable a child to attend a private school, which is a sort of grammar school, by means of granting taxation relief to parents who refuse to send their child to a modern secondary school, would be a sort of State endowment of snobbery, and it would also mean that the State would be paying for a kind of grammar school education at a private school while refusing to pay to educate the child at a public grammar school. I hope that that illogical attitude will not be pursued by hon. Members opposite.
We have had a very interesting debate, marred only by the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden). It is a very great pity that a new Member—the nephew of a very distinguished statesman—whose youth, aptitude and abilities augur a successful career in this House should have blotted his copybook as badly as he did by making extravagant statements. He accused teachers in a certain school of disseminating Communist propaganda within that school.
It is quite true that the headmaster of Acton County School is a member of the Communist Party and that, outside school, he has taken part in Communist propaganda in various directions. But there is no shadow of evidence that the headmaster or any member of his staff has indulged in Communist propaganda inside the school. I believe I am correct in saying that the whole matter was very carefully investigated by a special committee appointed by the county council, and that the headmaster and the whole staff were exonerated from the charge of attempting to disseminate Communist propaganda within the school.
Many headmasters are members of the Tory Party, but it does not follow that

because of that fact they have to indulge in Tory propaganda within their schools. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that it would be just as blameworthy for a teacher to indulge in Tory propaganda among his children as it would be to indulge in Communist propaganda. The teaching profession has a sense of professional integrity. All teachers would very strongly condemn any member of their profession who abused his office by endeavouring to instil political propaganda —whether it was Communist, Tory, Labour or Liberal—into his children. No professional organisation would defend him; in fact, it would act against him if it were proved that he had been guilty of such a thing.

Mr. Robson Brown: I do not want to misunderstand the hon. Member. I gather that in his view there is not very much difference between Tory propaganda and Communist propaganda. I believe that Socialist views and Conservative views bear no comparison at all with the Communistic view of the destruction of the State or democracy. They are entirely different things.

Mr. Morley: I did not say that I thought there was no difference between Tory and Communist propaganda. I think there is a great deal of difference, but am Ito understand from the interruption of the hon. Member that be would look not unfavourably on Tory propaganda in the school, while condemning unreservedly any Communist propaganda?

Mr. Robson Brown: I want no propaganda at all in schools, but I would say that the views of either a Socialist or a Conservative teacher would differ so much from that of a Communist teacher that the two questions are entirely different ones in every sense of the word.

Mr. Morley: When the hon. Member says that he wants no propaganda in the schools he entirely agrees with what I have just said. If he says that the Communist mentality is such that a Communist teacher would be obliged to indulge in Communist propaganda in his school, I must question that very much. I think that the professional integrity of such a teacher would overcome his inclination to indulge in such propaganda in front of his children. If it did not, he would


be worthy of any condign punishment which the local authority or the Minister might feel inclined to inflict upon him.
I want to make a few comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke). The hon. Member said that the main consideration was to see that children were happy in school. I agree that that is an extremely important thing. If, during the 40 or more years that I was a teacher in a class room, any child in my class had been unhappy I should have been very unhappy myself.

Mr. H. Brooke: I said that the two aims must be happiness and a high standard.

Mr. Morley: We will take the question of happiness first. The hon. Member emphasised that. It is quite true that our school children are happier than their predecessors of 30 or 40 years ago, but the increase in their happiness has nothing whatever to do with any efforts made by the present Minister of Education. It is due to the more easy-going and kindly discipline; to the more interesting and varied syllabuses placed before the children; to the more skilled and interesting teaching and also, in a very great measure, to the fact that children are much better fed and clothed. That is not due to any effort by the right hon. Lady; it is due to the Measures passed by the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951.
The hon. Member for Hampstead said that the curve of building shown on page 40 of the Report, "Education in 1953" went up in 1951, when the present Administration assumed office. I have looked at that curve, and it seems to me to have mounted fairly gradually and regularly all the time. It does not seem to have mounted more steeply since this Administration came into power than it did when the Labour Party were in office. It is true that more schools were finished in 1952 than in 1951, but nine-tenths of those schools were started under the Labour Administration in 1951. I would point out to the hon. Member for Hampstead that a school cannot be finished unless it is first started. This year, 100 fewer schools have been started than were started in 1953.
Local authorities asked for an allocation of £88 million in respect of school

buildings for the year 1955–56. According to the reply which was given me last Thursday by the Parliamentary Secretary, their actual allocation is to be £45 million —just over 50 per cent. of what they asked for. I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Hampstead alleged, that local authorities have been extravagant in their demands for building allocations, or that they asked for more building than was really necessary. Local authorities have to bear their share of the cost of new buildings; the whole cost is not met out of Treasury grants. At least 40 per cent. of it is met out of the rates.

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business) further Proceeding stood postponed.

STROUDWATER NAVIGATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.0 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I shall not detain the House long. This Bill is as bad as it was on the day it was born. The only demand for this Bill comes from those who are interested in bringing the bridges up to date to cope with the modern traffic, and I can well understand their feelings and sympathise with them, but there ought to have been promoted a Bill by the county council dealing with the bridges alone. The county council, one can well understand, has doubts whether the opponents of the Bill can make practical suggestions 'or substantial contributions, and in the circumstances I think that the attitude now taken by the chairman of the county council is a very generous one.
I have received a letter this morning from the clerk to the county council saying:
The Chairman has asked me to say that he is prepared, if the Bill becomes law, to recommend the Highways Committee and the County Council to consider sympathetically any proposals in connection with the reconstruction of the bridges I have referred to, which may be submitted to them by a responsible body of


persons who have in mind the development of a section of the Canal for pleasure boating purposes.
I hope that that sympathetic attitude will receive the support of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, whom I see in his place, and who intervened in the Second Reading debate to express the concern of the Ministry that this job should be properly done.
I have no doubt that there is now sufficient time for consideration at leisure of the real facts of the problem, particularly since there is a new development, confirmation of which I received only this morning when I received the letter from the county council. It is that the responsible body, which hardly existed at the time when the clerk to the county council wrote his letter last Saturday, does now exist, in so far as the Canal Restoration Committee has acquired a controlling interest in the shares of the Navigation Company itself.
We should like to express thanks to the public spirit and generosity of a number of shareholders, including two old and well-known local families, in putting their shares at the disposal of the Committee for that purpose. It will achieve two things at once, the complete removal of the possibility of profit seeking by those who hold the minority of the shares and it will now render it unnecessary to create any kind of trust or new company.
I think that the Navigation Company will now have the energy and new technique required, and I have no doubt that the new spirit, of mutual responsibility and good will will lead to the solution of the problem that has been sought on all sides. The Bill does not compel anyone to do anything, as I understand it. It gives permissive powers, and in the hope that nothing is done wantonly, hurriedly, or in a spirit of controversy, and as there is time for a solution to be found, I am asking my hon. Friends on this side of the House not to press the matter to a Division.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

REPORT [22nd July]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Morley: I was saying, when we were interrupted for the Third Reading of the Private Bill, that I do not think that the local authorities would ask for unnecessary expenditure for school building because part of that expenditure falls upon the rates and it would not wholly be borne by Treasury grants. Therefore it is not likely that any local authority, as the hon. Member for Hampstead suggested, would overstate its demands. When the local authorities asked next year for £88 million worth of school building it meant that they thought that they could not carry out successfully their educational system within their localities unless that £88 million was granted. Instead of £88 million being granted only £45 million was granted, just over 50 per cent. of their legitimate demands.
The hon. Member for Hampstead made some statements about comprehensive schools which seemed to me rather peculiar and rather contradictory. He denied that Eton and Harrow are comprehensive schools. Of course, Eton and Harrow are not comprehensive schools in the full sense of the term, in that they do not embody the total range of intellect from the lowest I.Q. to the highest I.Q., and in that respect are not completely comprehensive schools, but they do have amongst their boys a very wide range of intellectual ability. There are boys who obtain admission to Eton and Harrow who would not be able to qualify in the selection examination for entry to many a grammar school conducted by local authorities. So, although not completely comprehensive schools, they are to a degree comprehensive schools, and the success of Eton and Harrow may legitimately be cited as proof of the success of comprehensive schools.
The hon. Member for Hampstead said, further, that he agreed with the comprehensive school idea. He agreed with the comprehensive school idea, but he did not


want grammar schools to be absorbed into the comprehensive schools. However, we cannot have a comprehensive school unless the children of the highest I.Q. as well as of average I.Q. and of the lowest I.Q. are pupils within the comprehensive school. We cannot have a comprehensive school unless we have pupils of the grammar school type within that school. So what, in effect, the hon. Member for Hampstead said was that he was in favour of a comprehensive school so long as it was not a comprehensive school.

Mr. H. Brooke: I said I agreed with carrying out the comprehensive school experiment and that we should learn a great deal from it. What the hon. Member must understand is that Eton and Harrow are recruited from boys who are deemed suitable for that type of education, and he must distinguish between Eton and Harrow on the one hand, and the comprehensive school he is talking about on the other, for entry to which there would be no selection whatever.

Mr. Morley: I do not want to continue this argument because I do not want to be too long, but I think the hon. Member will agree that Eton and Harrow and most of our great public schools are in a sense comprehensive schools because they contain within them a very wide range of intellectual ability. They contain, I suppose, boys of an I.Q. range from 100 up to 180, which makes them, in a sense, comprehensive schools.
I do not wish to occupy much more of the time of the House because I know that there are other Members who desire to speak in the debate and who have been waiting to do so for some time, but I want to emphasise two things. First of all, I want to deal with what is to be the future of the secondary phase of education. It seems to me that the greatest problem we have before us at the present time in education is the organisation of the secondary stage.
By 1960 we shall have 700,000 more children in our secondary schools than we have at present, when the bulge has fully passed into the secondary schools. Today, we are giving about 21 per cent. of our children of secondary school age a grammar school education. An increase of 700,000 in the number of scholars of secondary school age means we have to—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): I am so sorry to interrupt, but I did not catch the percentage.

Mr. Morley: Twenty-one per cent.

Mr. Pickthorn: I thank the hon. Member. I am very sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Morley: At present, we are giving 21 per cent. of our children of secondary school age a grammar school education —21 per cent, on the average throughout the country. The number of children of secondary school age will increase by 700,000. Indeed, if we are to continue to give 21 per cent. of grammar school places to all children of secondary school age, that means that we have to find 142,000 additional grammar school places within the next few years. The problem is, how are we to continue that situation? I do not think that we ought to build extra grammar schools to provide 142,000 additional places.
It is quite true that the existing grammar schools cannot possibly be stretched to contain 142,000 additional pupils, and to build additional grammar schools at this time would be to run counter to the very great volume of public opinion which is opposed to the tripartite system in education and to a considerable volume of public opinion which prefers the comprehensive school to the tripartite system. I believe, therefore, that the best way to deal with this problem, with which we shall shortly be faced, would be for the local authorities to build comprehensive schools in their areas, which would contain not only the children of average and below average ability, but also these 142,000, or some of them, brighter children for whom there will be no places in the existing grammar schools.
In that way, we could partially solve this problem by having a number of comprehensive schools in a number of different areas. That would mean establishing the comprehensive school system in our usual English way, not by a violent or complete break with the past, but by making the changes which are necessary to meet the changing social conditions and changing currents of public opinion. If these additional children of secondary school age cannot be absorbed into the grammar schools, then I suggest some attention should be given to the experiments made at Southampton and elsewhere in which the grammar school


streams are placed in the existing modern secondary schools.
In Southampton, we have a scheme by which several modern secondary schools are selected in order to have what is called a "general course" for the pupils, and the general course is, in effect, a grammar school course. The parents of the pupils who take these courses are asked to keep them there until the age of 16, and at the age of 16 they take the General Certificate of Education. If they pass in a sufficient number of subjects, they are transferred to the sixth form of the grammar school.
In Southampton, this scheme has only been in operation for a few years. It was not until 1952 and 1953 that the pupils in the grammar school stream were able to take the General Certificate of Education. But, in 1952 and 1953, we had 341 passes from the modern secondary school in G.C.E. and 34 pupils in the modern secondary schools went on to the sixth form of the grammar school. The average number of passes in G.C.E. was three but some of the pupils were successful in getting six passes, and this year, which will be the first time that pupils have completed the full five years' course, we are expecting still better results.
I think that these are two ways of dealing with the organisation of the increased number of secondary school pupils with which we shall have to deal in the next few years—by establishing more comprehensive schools, and by placing grammar school streams in a number of selected modern secondary schools. I think that the Minister, if alive to the urgency of this problem, should now be inquiring of local authorities what are their plans for the organisation of the secondary stage of education, in view of the largely increased number of children of secondary school age which will have to be dealt with in the next few years.
Finally, I should like to touch upon a subject which has already been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and the hon. Member for Newbury, just to dot the i's and cross the t's of what they have said about all-age schools. There are over 700,000 children being taught in all-age schools of which nearly 300,000 are

children of secondary school age. The all-age school is classed as a primary school and all the 700,000 children are getting is a primary school education.
The 1944 Act promises secondary school education to all children, but 15 per cent. of the children are not getting it in these all-age schools. All over the rural areas there are schools of 50 to 150 children with an age range from five years to 15 years in buildings with no proper lavatory facilities, no art rooms, no metal work rooms, and no woodwork rooms, where the children have not the slightest chance of getting anything approximating to a secondary school education.
We all regret very deeply the fact that the Agricultural Wages Committee did not give an increase in wages to the agricultural workers in the recent negotiations. As a result, we are told by the representatives of the agricultural workers that many of the agricultural workers are leaving the countryside and seeking occupation in the towns. It is not only low wages which drives workers from the countryside; it is also lack of ordinary social amenities and, above all, lack of decent educational opportunities for their children.
I do not say that the teachers in the country schools are not doing their job efficiently. They are doing very well indeed under bad conditions, but they cannot work miracles, and the best teacher in the world cannot cope with an all-age school of children ranging from five to 15 without proper equipment or apparatus and without sufficient numbers to classify them according to their abilities and aptitudes.
I think it has already been mentioned that it would cost only £4 million a year for five years to reorganise completely the all-age schools. Surely that is a sum which the Minister ought to be quite willing to pay to put an end to this problem and restore some decent educational standards to the countryside, so that parents there may feel that their children are getting as good a chance as the children in the towns.
I do not wish to attack the Minister of Education. That has already been very effectively and dramatically done by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), but during the 50 years in


which I have been closely connected with the practice and polemics of education, I have never known such a feeling of frustration and disappointment, of what our forefathers called the "wanhope," as exists among the teachers today.
We have seen the size of classes increased. There are 8,000 more classes of over 40 pupils in our schools today than there where when the present Administration took office. We have seen the building programme fail to keep pace with the needs of the children. We have seen nothing substantial done about the reorganisation of the all-age schools. Nothing has been done to remedy the serious evils which were brought to light by the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates in connection with the old slum school buildings. We feel that we are not really making the progress in education that we ought to make.
I do not know exactly what is the reason. The right hon. Lady is now a member of the Cabinet, so she has a voice, and should have an influence, in the innermost counsels of the nation. It may be that the right hon. Lady, like many other occupants of the Government Front Bench, is mortally afraid of the 1922 Committee. We know that the 1922 Committee wants to destroy the new look garment which the Conservative Party donned in 1951 and which enabled it to win the Election of that year, and, instead of that garment, to dress the party in Edwardian habiliments.
The 1922 Committee is "gunning" for every progressive Minister. It has already got rid of one progressive Minister and rumour has it that it is attacking another. If the 1922 Committee likes to persuade the Conservative Party to commit political suicide by going back to a 19th century policy then we will not weep any tears, crocodile or otherwise, over that.
However, we are discussing education. We are discussing children. Education and the children should be above the contest of party politics. We ask the Minister to do something a little bit more constructive, to show a little hit more energy, a little bit more dynamism, in her educational policy during the 18 months which remain to the life of the Government than she has shown during the past three years. If she does not

do that, then she must go down in history as one of the most ineffectual Ministers of Education that this country has ever known.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Hollis: I always listen with pleasure and attention to speeches by the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley). On this occasion I think that he was a little bit more happy in the middle of his speech than he was either at the beginning or at the end. So far as the debate has been concerned with an attack upon my right hon. Friend, we must all agree that it has been a considerable fizzle.
The arguments of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) about building programmes and so on were most effectively answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke). The attempt of the hon. Member for Itchen to put the hon. Lady —if I may call her Humpty Dumpty—together again was not very effective, because the only statistic in building in which the record of the Government is, prima facie, not better than that of their predecessors was the one which the hon. Member quoted about the number of new schools started. The hon. Member omitted to remind the House that these new schools are now predominantly secondary schools whereas previously, and properly, they were predominantly primary schools, and the secondary school costs more money to build. Therefore, the amount of money which is being spent is greater now than it was under the previous Administration.
There was even less in the observations of the hon. Member about the 1922 Committee. The 1922 Committee is not the subject of debate this afternoon, and I do not think that there is any special point in following up the hon. Gentleman's observations.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said that she hoped that we should have an education debate. I certainly hoped that myself. I will assume that there was no tinge of party politics in any of her observations and that in her views on comprehensive schools she was passing —as she is perfectly entitled to do from her experience—a judgment purely and entirely as an educationist. I assumed


that exactly the same was the judgment of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove).
I admit that they are perfectly entitled to have a view, purely as educationists, that the comprehensive school is the best type of school. I do not quarrel with them holding that opinion, but if we are simply talking about this as educationists I would merely make the comment that they must recognise that that opinion is not universally held in educational circles. A number of schoolmasters hold the view and a number do not, and I am sure that the hon. Members will agree that their opinion is not universally held in educational circles. One school of thought favours the comprehensive school. Another school of thought is more restive about some of the problems caused by the comprehensive school.
The opinion is, I think, restive predominantly for two reasons which have nothing to do with politics and which we cannot deny are valid and important reasons. The first reason is that—though there may be exceptions in Scotland, for instance—as the idea of the comprehensive school is usually preached it will mean a very large school indeed, and there are plenty of people who think that there are dangers in having a school so large that the headmaster cannot have personal knowledge of all the boys.
Hon. Members opposite have been telling us that Eton is a comprehensive school. I do not think that it is a comprehensive school in the full sense of the word, but it is a very large school and, frankly, without any prevarication, I should say that its great defect is that it is so large. It is a great defect in the Etonian system that the headmaster is not able to get to know all the boys. If we sacked half the boys at Eton tomorrow I think that it would be a better school.

Mr. Ede: If the number of boys had been reduced by half in the hon. Gentleman's day, would he have been happy to go?

Mr. Hollis: I do not say that I should have been happy to go. The question is whether it would have been for the public good that I should go, and that is a matter of opinion. In any case, I think that it has grown too large.
The second reason is perhaps the more important one. The hon. Member for Aberavon spoke of the necessity of having comprehensive schools because that was the only way in which the average middle-class boy or girl could get a run for his money. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East praised the comprehensive school on the ground that it was a system which gave a fair chance to all. That is a point of view which doubtless the hon. Members honestly hold, but they cannot put it forward as an agreed point of view.
That is self-evident, because there is another school of thought which attacks the comprehensive school precisely on that ground. To prove that this is not a school of thought supported by only a few cranks, I quote from the document, "Reading Ability" issued when the Labour Government were in power and the late Mr. George Tomlinson was Minister of Education. It is not a party document. I do not say that the Government as such were responsible for it, but it certainly is not a Conservative document and it certainly was not issued by the 1922 Committee. It was issued by a Committee set up by the late Mr. George Tomlinson. That document said:
Duller children are liable to discouragement in any kind of school where they are in company with those who are much more able.
The argument was—a perfectly reasonable argument—that a certain moderate degree of competition is doubtless good for the child but to shove him into an environment of wholly unequal competition far from encouraging the child, would discourage him and militate against his opportunities in life. It would doubtless be very good for my cricket, were I to bat against the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). It would be good for it, were I to bat against Mr. Lindwall.

Miss Bacon: Would the hon. Member agree that the defects to which he has just drawn attention are much more prevalent in the village school where all the children are within one class in a small school, rather than in a large school where there are different classes?

Mr. Hollis: That may be so in the village school, but I do not feel that that has any bearing on this particular argument. I agree that we can have too small


schools, but that does not refute this argument. It is true that one may have comprehensive schools under different systems. If we have a system in which there is absolute rigid segregation between children by different streams in the same building, I think that is as bad a system as could be imagined.
In the educational world it is by no means a settled issue that there is an absolutely the best sort of school and that one sort of school is the answer to all our educational problems. I am by no means opposed to experiments being tried in building comprehensive schools where there is need for new building, but I do not like experiments to be at the expense of existing schools which are already doing their work well.
The difficulty which the hon. Member for Itchen felt in following the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead, did not seem a real difficulty for he himself answered it. There is an expanding school population and plenty of places where we can try these experiments without destroying existing institutions. I refer again to the document "On Reading Ability." We have to face the alarming statistics about the difficulties of reading in various classes of pupils and different sorts of schools, and the two sorts of school which are doing this best, as it shows, are the public schools and the grammar schools. It would be a foolish educational policy if in the name of theory we were to destroy the two sorts of school which are performing this essential function better than any other sort of school.
I turn to a consideration of a phrase, which is very easy to use and which there is a very easy political temptation to use —"equality of opportunity." It is rather important to examine it, not from the political, but from a purely scientific point of view, to find its real meaning and what degree of truth it holds. Some hon. Members say very easily that no child should have special advantage in life because of its parents. First, to some extent equality of opportunity is a fact, whether we like it or not, for it is a great advantage to have good parents and a disadvantage to have bad parents. No one would suggest that because some parents are alcoholics, therefore we should infect all children with alcoholism so that none should have an unfair advantage. For that reason it

does not necessarily follow that we should say that because to some extent it is a fact in nature we should not take measures to correct this injustice with which nature has visited certain children, but there again we have to consider what really are the qualities and origins of ability. If we forget politics for the moment and turn to science, observation and commonsense, we find there is no doubt about it that academic ability is very largely inherited.
If we take the Report of the Royal Commission on Population, we find persons, among others, as little likely to be suspected of Tory bias as J. B. S. Haldane and Mrs. Douglas Jay giving their names with very weighty evidence which was put before the Commission, to the theory that ability by and large was inherited. That being so, rather than a good thing I think it would be a great pity to create a system in which it would be quite impossible for a parent in any kind of way—however hard he had worked—to get any benefit for his son. A great motive for service to the community would be removed.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: How would the hon. Member prove which child has ability and which child has not? How could he put it to the test unless equal opportunities were given to prove that one child is able and the other child is not able?

Mr. Hollis: Certainly I would not test it in every case. As to how I would prove it, the last thing we want is to create a society in which people are mutually competing against one another for the whole time and doing nothing else. Therefore, we have to make certain assumptions.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member has not got the point which I am seeking to draw from him, namely, that ability is inherited. How can ability, whether inherited or not, be proved unless the opportunity for full education is available in all cases?

Mr. Hollis: It depends on what one means by full education—

Mr. Thomas: I would accept the hon. Member's definition.

Mr. Hollis: None of us in this House would say that every child should have exactly the same education so that we


should have a competition to see which comes out top. We all agree that there must be some system, whether a comprehensive school or different schools, by which certain children study one subject and certain children study another subject.
If we simply examine, not the children, but their parents, we probably would make a much better choice in the long run about who is to benefit from education than by examination of the children themselves. It would be to rule out all education if we were to suggest that all should have exactly the same education. That would be a very great mistake and would make it impossible for parents to benefit their children or it would destroy the various educational institutions in this country which have a great tradition behind them.
The wise as well as the traditional thing to do is to use the traditions of the nation and to modify them, as circumstances demand, to fit the conditions of the day. So I would have independent schools; I should be very sorry if they came to an end. I agree that so far as opportunities to attend them is concerned that there should be a test, and it is not so easy to get into a public school now as some hon. Members seem to think. There should be a stiff entrance examination and stiff tests to justify a boy staying there.
On the other hand I entirely agree that, while I believe in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, there are certain people whom biologists call "sports," who develop abilities greater than could be expected of them. It is enormously important that machinery should be provided whereby those people should not be frustrated and hat they should be given the fullest education—if the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) likes that term—imaginable; that is a great task which must be undertaken. I do not by any means agree with people who think that an aristocracy has played no great and creative part in the history of this nation or any other nation. I think the condition of survival has been that the aristocracy should allow a reasonably free entrance, from lower down, of the exceptional individual into its ranks.
It is of enormous importance to make public schools as public as possible. I

agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) in supporting the recommendations of the Fleming Committee by which as many as 25 per cent. of the boys at public schools should be of that kind. I agree with him in deploring the fact that the public schools have not been able to recruit anything approaching that number. I do not think it will be as easy to achieve that as my hon. and learned Friend thought. It is not merely a matter of advertising. There are great difficulties. My hon. and learned Friend was not a member of the Standing Committee which discussed the recent Education Bill, or I think he would agree that the difficulties by no means come mainly from the public schools.
The truth is that there are a certain number of people who, for a variety of reasons, do not wish to see this type of recruitment into he public schools. On the whole such people come from the Left Wing rather than the Right Wing. It is perfectly easy to see the difficulties of the individual parent whose boy at the age of 11 shows great promise and for whom there is an opportunity to go forward to a public school with a view to gaining a scholarship to a university and then going on to become Lord Chancellor. The parent may reflect that matters may not work out in that way—that it depends on whether the boy gets a scholarship at the age of 18 and that if he does not he will return to the village, perhaps more disgruntled and will be jeered at by the other boys.

Dr. Horace King: The hon. Member has talked about the failure of somebody to carry out the terms of the Fleming Report, which suggested 25 per cent. of the places in public schools being allocated in the way he has mentioned. Does the hon. Member know any public school in the country which has offered to any education authority or the Ministry 25 per cent. of its places?

Mr. Hollis: If the hon. Member means some formal offer on a piece of paper, I cannot say that I do, but if he is asking whether I know of a public school which would be perfectly willing to follow that recommendation I would say that some years ago I remember the late master of Marlborough telling me that he was longing to get more such boys. I have heard the headmaster of Eton say as


much. I have talked to many public schoolmasters about this, and I have never heard any of them utter anything other than the highest of praise of such boys and the wish that they could get more of them.

Mr. Dryden Brook: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that local authorities, who have been under pressure from the Ministry to economise in their budgets, should put first on their programmes the sending of a large number of boys and girls to boarding schools, which will cost £300 or £400 per pupil a year?

Mr. Hollis: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for making my speech for me. His intervention has largely dealt with the point raised by his hon. Friend. It shows that the objection does not come mainly from the public schools. Also, his remark leads me to the point I was going to make, that it is scarcely reasonable to expect local authorities, in such circumstances, to be much more generous than they are. I intended to suggest to my right hon. Friend that if this scheme was to be made a success it would require central Government assistance in the financing of it.
I wish to make a point on the question of inequality in respect of the number of students who go to grammar school in different areas of the country. It is a perfectly valid point and, as we know, there is a gross disparity in the figures, and I certainly hope that my right hon. Friend will press forward with her policy of ensuring that there should at any rate be some minimum standard or proportion in all the areas and an adequate provision of grammar schools in all the areas.
On the other hand, there is another side to the question which is often overlooked. People so often talk as if there was an equality of ability, not merely between individuals but between different localities, and that if only justice was done precisely the same proportion or almost the same proportion of children would qualify for grammar school, on some sensible, objective test, in all the different parts of the country. I do not believe that ability is spread in that sort of way. If one looks at history, one finds that the greatest artistic contributions are not equally spaced over the nations of the world or within nations but, on the

contrary, have been overwhelmingly concentrated, throughout the greater part of history, in tiny little areas and very small countries—Athens or Florence or Elizabethan England—and have flourished there for a short time.
So, though in some mystic way we are doubtless all equal in the sight of God, it is sometimes assumed that the ability to profit by the humanism of a grammar school education is equally divided among us. I very much doubt that. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) may perhaps agree. Yet a general complaint in relation to grammar school education is that the Welsh send too many children to grammar schools. On the whole I think they should have a lot. It is obvious that the Welsh have much more feeling for language than have the English and it is right that more Welsh people should have the opportunity of such an education. The English doubtless have many other characteristics of their own, for this feeling for language is not equally spread. Vocabulary is richer in one part of Britain than another. Thus we need a variety of education not merely between individual and individual but between one part of the country and another.

Mr. W. T. Williams: The hon. Member says that it is perfectly proper that there should be variety of education and that there should be some possibility—I agree that he says that the public schools should be as public as possible—of part of the educational facilities being reserved for people who in present circumstances can pay for it. Does he say that it should be confined to people who can afford to pay for it? Because surely a good deal of the argument which he is now making will be vitiated by the fact that the only privilege he is really claiming, whatever gloss he puts upon it, it one for those who can afford to pay for their children's education.

Mr. Hollis: I do not know what the hon. Member means. I made certain points about public schools some time ago and my argument now is quite a different one, which has nothing to do with income.

Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to say something more. He is now saying—and he is speaking particularly of Wales—that it is


the case in Wales that too many people go to the grammar schools, or that it is said that too many people—

Mr. Hollis: No, I said the opposite.

Mr. Williams: —go to the grammar schools. I merely said—whether that be true or not—that in Wales the children of poor parents can go to grammar schools to get a training in the humanities of a kind which they cannot get in England, or in most parts of England, unless their parents can afford to send them to the public schools. Is the hon. Member for Devizes suggesting that that is fair either in the sight of God or man—

Mr. G. Thomas: Or the Minister.

Mr. Williams: —or that there is any justice in that privilege being reserved for children in England who go to public schools without having any particular merit of their own?

Dr. H. Morgan: Do not be too hard on the poor chap, he does not know anything at all about it.

Mr. Hollis: I do not think I can follow what the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams) is saying about those people in Wales who rejoice in a grammar school education and that no one in England could get a similar education without going to a public school. I do not follow that at all. But so far as they do get a similar education, and so far as it be true that in Wales the people at large are willing to pay a higher education rate than people in some other counties, that is a wholly good and admirable thing on the part of the people of Wales. But how it has anything to do with the other people not being educated unless they are rich I cannot imagine.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: We have listened with attention to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) because we know that he has shown a sincere interest in education over a great number of years; but I am bound to say that tonight he was rather less clear than usual. In fact, I would say that it is rarely that one hears such a hotchpotch of ideas in so short a time. I will not try to disentangle some of the things he has put forward, but I will content myself with a couple of observations.

Listening to the hon. Member, it seemed to me that to get a good education one should choose the right parents, who should be rich and of a high intellectual standard. If one could not manage that then one should at least choose parents who lived in Wales.
The whole of the argument of the hon. Member for Devizes based on the influence of heredity and was, I think, quite unfounded; because it so happens that high parental academic ability usually goes with a favourable environment. I do not think that any statistics showing how many sons of university dons achieve high academic honours could be based on the heredity factor alone, because these two factors go together. There are plenty of statistics of the opposite kind which show how the children of labourers have gone to universities and secured first-class honours degrees. But, in the interests of brevity, I feel sure that the hon. Member for Devizes will forgive me if I do not pursue his speech any further.
The outstanding problem in education today, in my opinion, is to attain a reduction in the size of classes. Obviously, that cannot be done without the provision of more buildings and teachers. With that, and as a first priority, I would put the elimination of the worst buildings, the very disgraceful buildings, which still exist in some parts of the country. I will not attempt now to illustrate how these things can be done, because already we have had a number of speeches on the subject, including a notable contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). I wish to deal at length with some university problems. When we are trying to solve these short-term problems, which are becoming increasingly pressing as the bulge in the school population is moving into the secondary schools, it is as well that we should seriously consider the organisation of secondary schools.
For that reason I am glad that the argument for comprehensive schools has been ventilated during this debate. I regret that in exercising her powers of direction, the Minister interfered with the proper development of the Kidbrooke School. Hon. Members opposite have revealed in their speeches that they do not understand what is meant by a comprehensive school. It is impossible for an experimental comprehensive school to


have a fair chance unless it contains the whole range of I.Q.s and interests and aptitudes which are essential if the experiment is to be given a fair test.
I do not dispute that the right hon. Lady has the power to intervene. I Hold that education should be a partnership between local authorities and the Ministry, and that the views of local authorities should be given the greatest consideration. At the same time, I would say that the Minister is the senior partner because, by virtue of Parliamentary grant, most of the money comes from the central Government. But I think it unfortunate that on the only occasions on which she has intervened, the right hon. Lady has done so in a reactionary rather than in a progressive manner.
One matter to which we should all like to see her give some thought, and about which she might exercise her powers, is the problem of what is commonly called the test at 11; the method of the selection of children for the various channels and streams in the educational system. Although a comprehensive school would, to a large extent, do away with the need for such an examination, even were the right hon. Lady more favourably inclined towards comprehensive schools, we could not transform the whole system within a number of years; and, therefore, some system of sorting out the children must remain with us for a long time.
I have no quarrel with the examination system. As a matter of fact, I think that I have been much more successful in examinations than I 'probably deserved to be.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: That is probably an argument against them.

Mr. Mulley: As my hon. Friend says, that is probably an argument against the examination system rather than something in its favour. But I mention it to show that I have no personal sense of frustration because I was unfortunate in examinations.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend says that he has no quarrel with the examination system, because in his judgment, and in his own case, he did better than he thought he ought to have done. Is not that in itself a criticism which finds favour with most people; that the whole

examination system proves how well a child does on a particular occasion, but is no safe guide to the ability or the attainments of the child?

Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who has made my next point for me. I made the personal reference to indicate that I had no personal—I used the word "personal" deliberately—objection to examinations. But the examination system is open precisely to the objection which my hon. Friend voiced so much better than I could have done.
As the House will know, generally speaking there is quite serious concern among parents about the outcome of this test. It is clear that this is primarily a local authority responsibility and not one for the Minister. But I think that local authorities should be encouraged to find a way—some authorities have already gone some distance in this direction—to avoid the idea that the whole future of a child depends on its performance in a particular examination on a particular day.
It would appear to me possible, by the keeping of proper primary school records, for the records and reports of headmasters and headmistresses to be taken into account. My own local authority in Sheffield organises sample tests in order to give the children the psychological advantage of taking one or two trial tests. I think that it is possible for these tests to be taken into account to remove the fear that the whole future of a child may depend on its performance on a particular date.
It is true, of course, that no matter how one organises the educational system, even within a comprehensive school, there must be some form of selection. While I believe that much more weight should be given to reports and records, I feel that there should also be some objective test of the kind which is now given. Otherwise, the door is open to the exercise of certain pressures upon teachers and there may be fear, probably unfounded, about teachers being prejudiced against certain children. It is a very difficult matter, but I feel that a lot can be done to allay public suspicion and, equally important, very largely to remove the pent-up feeling some months before an examination takes place, which results in great strain on both children and parents. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about this.
I now wish to turn to the subject of selection for university grants and scholarships. The Minister has been good enough to supply me from time to time with facts and figures about this matter. Although there are both university college scholarships and State scholarships, about 40 per cent. of all the students at universities depend upon local education authority grants or awards. There are great discrepancies in the numbers of grants given by local education authorities and in the amounts given to students going to the same college or university.
I admit that there has been a big increase—I am glad to say this, because it is a matter which I have raised previously—in the number of local authorities which have accepted the Minister's scale. The majority of local authorities now pay grants according to the Minister's recommended scale, although, to say the least, it is on the modest side.
There is in particular, the great problem about vacation payments. I have no objection, and I am sure that most hon. Members have no objection, to university students working during vacations—it is probably beneficial educationally as well as of assistance financially—but there is all the difference between earning a little money and the financial anxiety which goes with having to earn full wages during vacations in order to be able to remain at a university. I hope the Minister will consider the possibility of making more satisfactory arrangements for vacation grants for both university and teacher-training students.
One of the consequences of the fact that local education authorities are observing the amounts of the Minister's scale is that many of them are reducing the number of awards which they give. It is not unfair to say that today one's chance of going to a university depends as much upon having a rich parent or a parent who has chosen his residence wisely as it does upon the inherent ability of the child.
I will illustrate that by giving some figures. I do not want to make too much of them because I realise that their bases are not always comparable; for instance, they depend upon the number of home students and the number of students going to Oxford and Cambridge. In 1951–52 the average award made by Bury

was £96 compared with £276 by the City of Gloucester. The number of awards per 10,000 population in the same academic year varied from 1·51 in Leeds to 20·46 in Cardiganshire. Leeds spent 5¾d. per head of the population upon university education in that period compared with 7s. 5d. per head in Carmarthenshire.
I am sorry to make a special point about Leeds in view of the very great interest in this subject of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). However, I believe it is fair to make a comparison between Leeds and Sheffield. Sheffield has a slightly larger population than Leeds, and, of course, we claim to be a much superior city. Each has a university and each has a population of about 500,000. Yet in 1952–53 Leeds spent £32,600 on grants for university and non-university purposes, whereas Sheffield spent £96,000, three times as much. By looking at the statistics, one could produce many more anomalies of this sort.
Does not the Minister consider it time to reduce the number of local education authority awards or perhaps to abolish them altogether and substitute State scholarships to be granted on the basis of ability and not the accident of geography?

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): I am very glad that my hon. Friend has quoted the position in some of the counties of Wales. However, is not the position that some very wealthy local education authorities are very little interested in education? Would not the suggestion that my hon. Friend is now making do a great deal of harm to progressive local education authorities? I would point out with a great deal of pride that my own local education authority insists upon spending all it possibly can in educating children.

Mr. Mulley: I was talking only about university scholarships. It should also be realised that the authorities which are generous are generous with the taxpayers' money also because 60 per cent. of the cost comes from the central Exchequer. I agree that any system of this kind should leave local authorities the option to supplement State scholarships if they so desire.
With regard to grants to teachers, I believe that the Minister recognises that the dual system of having a grant from the Ministry and another grant from the local authority is unsatisfactory. There is evidence to show that many students at teacher-training colleges are suffering considerable hardship. There have been prosecutions for theft, and so on, to which I am sure the Minister's attention has been drawn.
The Principal of the Sheffield Training College has suggested that a minimum of £90 per year is desirable for incidental expenses. The National Union of Students has suggested £75 to cover all items apart from tuition and board at the college during term—travelling, books, clothing, sports equipment, theatres, cigarettes, and the rest. The Union figure represents 30s. per week; the average now paid by local education authorities is £30 per year, a little over 10s. per week to meet all items outside tuition and board at the college.
The difficulties which are being experienced are likely to be reflected in the quality of those who will be going to the teacher-training colleges and will, therefore, have an indirect effect on the future of education itself. As the 1944 Act continues to operate and more of the better children go to universities and become graduates, that aspect of the teaching profession should also be given further study.
I wanted to say a word about the problem of the technical colleges, but in view of the late hour I will content myself with an observation or two about the universities. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has spent a good deal of time here, it would be a pity if someone did not speak about the field for which there is Treasury responsibility.
I think it is a matter for congratulation that the Barlow Committee's recommendation, in 1946, that the number of science and technical students should be doubled has been achieved, but I feel that there is still a great need for an expansion of university students in the directions of science and technology. At present, roughly 20 per cent. are science students and 12 per cent. students of technology, while other students have remained at about the same percentage—43 per cent.—as was the case before the war, when it was 44·8 per cent.
Since it is not possible, in my judgment, rapidly to expand the number of students at the universities, and, at the same time, to obtain a more favourable percentage of those studying science, this question should be given priority, and if the Minister were to adopt the system which I have suggested of giving State scholarships, rather than leaving it to the local education authorities to provide awards, the awarding of State scholarships might actually be used as a means of getting a better balance between the various faculties in the universities.
I suggest it would be wrong to place the responsibility solely on the university or university college concerned for making the awards. It is, in my judgment, desirable that there should be a minimum standard or objective test also. There are backdoors even into Oxford and Cambridge.
I should like to plead with the Government to give rather more thought to university education than has been given so far. Many aspects of university life have been investigated, and we have had a number of reports, including that from the Select Committee on Estimates in 1952, which examined the financial aspects and the Barlow Committee on Scientific Manpower and committees on medical schools and dentistry, but nobody has so far been charged with the responsibility of having a look at the role of the university in present day society. It is quite clear that the function and position of the universities today is quite different from what it was before the war, and, while we want to retain the independence of the universities, it is quite clear from every report which we read that we must get a larger number of highly qualified scientists and technicians. Certain recommendations were made in this direction quite recently.
I would suggest to the right hon. Lady that she should suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, since the Government are very fond of committees and commissions, there is a lot to be said for having a Royal Commission to have a look at the role of the universities and the whole problem of university education. I suggest that such a Commission should have very wide terms of reference, and if I may suggest one or two, I think the Commission might consider


the problem of retaining the independence of the universities while they are increasingly dependent, directly and indirectly, on Parliament grants, and ensure that the money is well spent.
Roughly speaking, the universities receive between £25 and £30 million a year, which is likely to increase, and another £6 or £7 million indirectly from fees from public funds. I believe that the money is well spent, but this House should have the satisfaction of seeing that the money which it is providing is being properly spent.
Next, there is the question of the provision of facilities for a proper balance between the faculties, and, particularly, the preference of the students for Oxford and Cambridge or London Universities. I think it will be found that Oxford and Cambridge come first, with London University second and any provincial university a poor third, and I think that some attention should be paid to the size of the university population.
More attention should be paid to what happens to university students when they leave their university. Most universities have appointments boards, but I am not quite sure that they devote the same amount of thought and care in placing their students in employment as do the colleges themselves in selecting students for entry to the universities. It seems to me that, while a great deal of time is spent in trying to get the best students into the universities, very much less time is given to placing these people in employment or in advising them how to obtain the maximum advantage from their university education, and I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to impart some of these suggestions to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
It is perhaps unfortunate—and a reflection on what the right hon. Lady has done—that it is difficult to see that she has done very much, if anything at all, to further the idea of equal educational opportunity or which we all hoped so much when the 1944 Act was passed. It is quite possible that it is not really all her fault. I think she has been tied down in the Government in that she has not been allowed as much money as she would have liked for her purpose. While she has not provided that greater educational opportunity, perhaps this has saved

her from pressure on the part of the 1922 Committee, and thus she has been given a longer term of office than would otherwise have been the case. Yet I can assure her that the educational record of this Government is not such as will commend it to the country when the time of reckoning comes.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) will forgive me if I do not follow him in everything he said, though there are one or two points which I should like to take up from his speech, with a large part of which I agree. Unfortunately, at the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman made a cheap gibe about the 1922 Committee, which has nothing to do with the matter at all. May I point out to him that the committees on this side of the House are concerned about education just as much as any committee on that side of the House, and possibly more?
In regard to the independence of the universities, the hon. Member said that he did not want Government control, and yet proceeded to set out a large number of suggestions which would mean that the universities were being run by a Government Department. I am sure that he will agree with me when I say that the universities must be entirely free of Government, Ministers and Departments, and be able to pursue their own educational studies in their own way.

Mr. Mulley: rose—

Mr. Doughty: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but he spoke for a long time, and I have only six or seven minutes.
I should also like to say something on another point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He also spoke on the relations between the education authorities and the Minister, which has been the theme of many of the speeches today, but that leaves out the most important people in the whole matter—the parents. They are the people, who far more than any Minister or teacher, or even any politician, can influence a child's character and to a certain extent its knowledge. Given the fact that the child is capable of assimilating education, we must remember that of the money spent


on that child a large proportion is wasted, and therefore we have to consider the views of the parents on the question of education even before those of the teacher, and certainly before those of the Minister. That is why I welcome the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) that there should be some form of assistance for parents who make great personal sacrifices to provide for their own children's education and thereby save the country a certain amount of expense.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for lichen (Mr. Morley) made an attack upon one of my hon. Friends for having brought to the notice of the House the fact that at a certain school the headmaster is a member of the Communist Party. When people cannot come to this House and explain matters which they think should be brought to the attention of the public, the days of this House are numbered. It was perfectly right that my hon. Friend should do so. He might be criticised for doing it, but he was performing a public duty.

Sir F. Messer: He did not give the whole story.

Mr. Doughty: A very large number of people in this country would be shocked to hear that active Communists are, in fact, teaching the young children of this country.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Nonsense.

Mr. Doughty: That is a matter which must shock a large number of parents, especially of children of tender years.

Mr. Davies: What about active Tories teaching children?

Mr. Doughty: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that interruption. I will use the few minutes that are left to me to show its fallacy. I believe that, on the whole, Tory views put the welfare of the country first. We know that Communists do nothing of the sort. Their views are not political views but treacherous views, and we do not want our children taught by traitors.

Mr. Davies: The biggest educational menace is the Tory, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows it very well.

Mr. Doughty: If the hon. Gentleman interrupts much more I shall be unable to sit down in time, and he will then get into trouble with his own Front Bench.
The Government of the day, whatever its political colour, must look after education, which is one of the very important social services; but the first social service that any Government owe to their people is to keep them alive and free. If they do not do that, the other questions just do not arise. In allocating the amount of money that can be spent upon additional social services it is not always possible to give everybody everything he wants. We are engaged upon the task, under the 1944 Act, of rebuilding and improving the educational system. That is not a matter which can be done by one Government or by two Governments in a short time. It will certainly be a generation before it can be finished.
The present Government can well be proud of their trusteeship of the educational system during the three short years in which they have been in power. I have no time now t o give the full figures, but I would refer to Circular 242, which has already been mentioned. It was brought out at a time when, because of the activities and the mistakes of the late Government, we were in a financial crisis and everything had to be looked at from the financial point of view. Since then, conditions have very much improved. Now, the Education Estimates, together with the local authority rate-borne charge for education, are more than £244 million for 1954–55 whereas for 1951–52 they were only just £200 million. Nobody can truthfully say that we have not spent on education the full amount that could possibly be spent, and far more than any other Government.
In 1953, 250,000 new primary and secondary school-places were provided in England and Wales, or twice as many as in 1950. There may be overcrowding, because of the so-called "bulge" in the number of school children—I do not know why it should be called a "bulge." To say "an increase in numbers" would be much better English and would say just what we mean. The increase in the number of teachers averages 6,000. We therefore have not only more children but more teachers as well.
Unfortunately, time does not permit of my speaking fully about comprehensive schools. I am certainly not in favour of abolishing grammar schools in order to put in their place comprehensive schools which are, at best, an experiment. I am


against them, because they are too big. We do not want young children to be taught in big establishments of about 2,000 scholars. Reference has been made to Eton College as being a comprehensive school, but the position is completely different because boys at Eton are in houses of about 30 or 40 scholars each, whereas in the comprehensive schools the children are all together in the same building.
The Government may well be proud of their record in education. The political attack which has been made on the Minister today will rebound on those who made it, and it ought never to have been made. We ought to keep education out of politics just in the same way as we ought to keep politics out of education.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not intend to keep politics out of education or education out of politics. The training of future citizens is the most important task that the present generation can undertake, and if that were outside politics I would lose all my interest in politics. I therefore hope that the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) will understand that we come to this place to express contrary views on subjects on which we honestly differ. My views on the organisation and practice of education are, and always have been, fundamentally different from those of hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches.
Therefore, knowing that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) is by no means a non-political figure in London, I was a bit surprised that he found the robust, vigorous and well-informed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) to be something that ought to he criticised as "political." I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend, and I am hoping to hear the answer to it eventually. This has been a most surprising debate on Report of Supply. We have the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary sitting opposite to us, and the only words we shall get from the Government will be made too late for any reply to be offered to them.
I do not know how much longer the Parliamentary Secretary intends to submit to the successive humiliations that are

imposed upon him. He must have realised from the response that he got last Thursday afternoon when he rose to answer at Question time how anxious we always are to hear what he has to say. It is a great pity that we should be precluded from hearing him this evening, because I am quite certain that if the Minister did not give the case away, he would.
We have had a very interesting and vigorous debate, and the contributions made from both sides of the House have, I think, been well in keeping with the importance of the subject which we are discussing. If I refer first to the speeches made from this side of the House, it is because I find myself in complete agreement with everything that has been said in them, and because I only want to emphasise one or two points in the hope that the Minister will reply to them.
We still want to know why the Minister went to a meeting and told the people attending it to organise a petition so that she could turn down the Kidbrooke School. After all, the Minister has to exercise a judicial function in the matter, and it is news to me, as a mere country "beak"—you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, having been a Metropolitan magistrate may know this; things may differ in the Metropolis—that the person who has to exercise the judicial function should suggest to one side or the other the way in which they are to conduct their case and the points that will appeal to the person who has to exercise the final decision.
It was quite clear from that moment that the Kidbrooke School as proposed by the London County Council was dead. After all, what happened afterwards must have been expected from that moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) make, as he always does, a most interesting speech on the subject of technical education. Of course, technical education has always done badly in this country. A book written by a gentleman who was a member of the staff of the old Board of Education for a good many years, Mr. G. A. N. Lowndes, tells us that:
Members of the staff transferred from the Charity Commission to the Board of Education to deal with secondary schools, used to recall the saying in pre-Board of Education days that the secondary schools are administered by gentlemen for gentlemen, the elementary school by men for men, but technical schools by cads for cads.


May I say, as one whose memories go back to that time, that it is not an inapt description of the attitude of the central Government towards technical education at that time. Let us make no mistake about it, the actions of the present Government are, to the limited extent that they have moved, a confirmation of what I am going to say.
Unless we improve the quality of our technical education and the number of students who participate in it, and give it an appropriate place in the education firmament, this country is doomed. We have to live by the creative genius of our designers and by the skill of our craftsmen. Greek poems do not rank very high in the export market, and the man who wants to write Greek poems, if he wants to live in this country, will only do so because other men design, get, make and carry goods. There must be no doubt about that when we get down to the ultimate things of life and for as long as we can foresee, it will be the success of our technical education that will determine our standard of life. Therefore, I am very glad that my hon. Friend dealt with the subject as he did.
I particularly want to emphasise what my hon. Friend said about technical instruction in grammar schools. It is quite wrong to think that in our great industries we want the second-best brains. Not merely in management but on the practical side of industry we want the best brains that can apply themselves to the practical problems that are involved in the carrying on and improvement of our historic industrial processes. That is the real answer to one of the points put by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden). Unfortunately, even people who are born with silver spoons in their mouths will find that unless our best brains regard technical things as not below their notice there will be nothing to put in the silver spoons and they will choke those having them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said a thing with which I profoundly agree. He said that the comprehensive school is the only hope in the near future for the lower middle classes being able to get the types of education in the sufficient variety which they require. I shall come hack to the comprehensive school later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) appears to have had a highly successful professional career, for he told us that if any of his pupils had ever been unhappy he, also, would be unhappy.

Mr. Morley: I was unhappy.

Mr. Ede: And so was I very often—but perhaps, an act of oblivion has been passed over the worst excesses by our ex-pupils. I am bound to say that when I first taught I had a class of 73—and never had a class of fewer than 55—I did very well when I did not make everyone unhappy every day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) dealt with some of the problems relating to the universities. I am sorry that the Financial Secretary was not here at the time. I would ask him to read very carefully my hon. Friend's remarks. He will find that my hon. Friend made a good many practical suggestions that were not, I think, very controversial but which ought to be brought to the notice of the University Grants Committee. If they can be acted upon I am quite certain that the contact of the universities with the ordinary life of the country will be very greatly improved.
I would ask the right hon. Lady to pay particular attention to what my hon. Friend had to say about grants to persons in training colleges. I know from my own personal correspondence and my contacts with son-le of the young people there that at the moment very acute financial pressure is being felt by some of the students.
We have spent a good deal of time this afternoon in dealing one side and the other with the comprehensive school. I am quite sure that many of the anxieties that are being felt now, especially among the parents of the children in the primary and all-age schools, arise almost entirely from their belief that the Education Act, 1944, has misfired.
What was the aim of the Education Act, 1944? In 1943, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer issued Command Paper 6458, and I want to read an essential paragraph in it, for this was the White Paper on which the debate in 1943 took place before the Bill was introduced. It


deals with this problem of the age of 11, and it says:
More serious still is the effect on the junior schools and on their pupils of the arrangements for transition from the junior schools to the various types of post-primary education. At the age of 11 the children sit for an examination on the results of which depends the nature of their further full-time schooling. The most successful—amounting to only about 9·5 per cent.—proceed to secondary schools, while the remainder, with the exception of a few who go to junior technical schools, receive the rest of their full-time education, either in separate schools for senior pupils, or in the upper classes of the old-age schools to which they already belong.
There is nothing to be said in favour of a system which subjects children at the age of 11 to the strain of a competitive examination on which, not only their future schooling, but their future careers may depend. Apart from the effect on the children, there is the effect on the curriculum of the schools themselves. Instead of the junior schools performing their proper and highly important function of fostering the potentialities of children at an age when their minds are nimble and receptive, their curiosity strong, their imagination fertile and their spirits high, the curriculum is too often cramped and distorted by over-emphasis on examination subjects and on ways and means of defeating the examiners. The blame for this rests not with the teachers but with the system.
The avowed object of the 1944 Act was to destroy that system. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the debate on that White Paper in 1943, said:
The Government now propose a radical reconstruction of the whole scheme. We propose that the system shall be so reorganised that over 11 years of age secondary opportunities of varying types shall be offered to ad pupils according to their aptitude, and, if the choice at 11 is not satisfactory, there shall be a re-sorting up to the age of 13.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Moreover, hanging over the whole of the junior world is the special-place examination, which we propose to do away with, so that in future a child may be selected according to its talent for the various different types and choices of secondary education which I propose to describe. The poor parent gets very little consideration in our education"—
I commend this to the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East—
and it is suggested that, although we shall not give way to the parents' belief that they think they know everything about their children and think they are the best children in the world…we shall try to bring them in to making the choice for the secondary opportunities which we propose to give to the children after the opinion of the teacher has

been given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1943; Vol. 391, c. 1827–28.]
I must say, as one who was not unconcerned with the Bill at that stage, that my feeling of frustration at the failure to implement that clear indication of the feeling of the whole House 11 years ago, gives me more disappointment than anything else that I have known in the whole of my public life.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: The right hon. Gentleman's party had five years in which to carry that out. Why did not they do so?

Mr. Ede: We got on with it. My objection is that—as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon—the reorganisation of rural schools was deliberately stopped by the Minister, according to the circular which my hon. Friend read out. Reasonable development has been stopped.

Mr. Cove: It is the denial of the 1944 Act.

Mr. Ede: I feel very strongly about it for this reason: I sat for this examination as long ago as 1895. In the whole county of Surrey only 64 candidates presented themselves for examination, and 32 scholarships were available. I passed No. 32 on the list—three marks ahead of No. 33, who has led an honest life ever since. In the year in which the Education Act was passed 900 places were available in the secondary schools of Surrey. That seems a great advance on 32 places, but there were 9,000 candidates instead of 64.
In 1895 I landed an even money chance. In the year in which the Education Act was passed the candidates had to land odds of 9 to 1 against to get into the winning section. If I had taken the examination in that year I should have had a very good view of the race from Tattenham Corner, when the winners were going past the post.
The ambitions of parents and the needs of the nation convince me that people at least as low down on the I.Q. test—and any other test one likes to mention—as I should be today ought to be among the winners, as I was in 1895. Although it may be presumption on my part, I think that we draw the line a great deal too high, at the moment, and when we have drawn the line we condemn those above it to too narrow a curriculum. Unlike


the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, who deplored the tendency to make use of aptitude tests, I think that the chief job of the educator is to deal with those tests. He cannot alter ability, but he can improve aptitude, and also prevent one aptitude from running away with a whole personality and leaving it improperly developed.
I hope that the Minister will soon agree to the completion of the reorganisation of rural schools. She must have been impressed, as I was, by the speeches made by the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) about the problem of rural parents. I do not know what experience the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has had in this matter, but mine is that when a farmworker is about to seek a new job he is very often told by his wife to ask where the school is situated in relation to the place where he will have to work, and what that school is like.

Mr. Baldwin: I entirely endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd). In fact, if I had been called in the debate, I should have mentioned that my county comes fourth on the black list.

Mr. Ede: I am very glad to have given the hon. Member the opportunity of reinforcing the case.
I would ask the right hon. Lady to realise the altered outlook of the agricultural community on education, an alteration in outlook that has occurred during the last 20 years. There was a time when those of us who were keen on education regarded the farmers—not unnaturally, in some counties—as our strongest opponents; the mechanisation of agriculture and the ambitions of the workers' wives have altered that position. I very sincerely hope that the right hon. Lady will pay attention to the demands that have been made.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West alleged that there was a head teacher, whom he named, and whom I know—

Sir F. Messer: He was a President of the N.U.T.

Mr. Ede: He was the principal supporter in the N.U.T. of the 1944 Act. He

was President when the Measure went through, and on more than one occasion I have heard him reprove other members for being lukewarm in their support of it. I want to make this quite clear. What we objected to in what the hon. Member said was this, that this man used his position inside the school to influence the minds of children in the school. That particular issue was examined by the Middlesex County Council—

Sir F. Messer: I was on it.

Mr. Ede: —and it found that the accusation was unfounded. When one looks at the deplorable state of the schools in the United States at the present time, and even of some of the universities, one perceives that it will be a bad day for this country if ever we apply a political test to a teacher and put him under any penalty at all for holding any views unless he tries to influence the children in his school in that direction.
As one who regards the Tory Party as a greater menace than the Communist Party in this country I want to make it quite clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In this country the Communist Party is only a figure of fun, because we have been wise enough not to persecute it. I want to make it quite clear that if any Tory teacher or Socialist teacher used his position to influence the children in the school in forming their political views from a party point of view I should regard him as being an unsuitable person to teach.

Mr. Renton: I am sure there is one thing the right hon. Gentleman would wish to make clear. He may wish to qualify his statement. He is on record, as I understand, as having said that he regards the Communist Party with less seriousness than he regards the Conservative.

Mr. G. Lindgren: As a greater menace.

Mr. Renton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would clear up the point. The Conservative Party is the party from which Her Majesty's present Government are drawn, and the Communist Party, on the other hand, is something which most people in this country, very rightly, seriously suspect.

Mr. Ede: I hope I said that I regard the Tory Party as a bigger danger than the Communist Party. I was brought up from my earliest days to believe that there was no greater danger to this country than a prolonged period of Tory Party rule. I shall go on believing that.
There is one final thing which I wish to say. There is a great deal of frustration in the country, and no small part of it is due to the attitude which the right hon. Lady adopts towards the local education authorities. What she has recently done in Northamptonshire appears to me to be quite indefensible. Twice the Northamptonshire County Council have put at the head of their list a school at a place called Guilsborough in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and my hon. and learned Friend and the Solicitor-General asked her, I understand, to receive the Northamptonshire Education Committee in order to discuss with her the reasons for eliminating that school in two successive years from the list.
Her reply to my hon. and learned Friend, which I have seen, was to the effect that she did not discuss building programmes; that was a matter for the officials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I want to read to the right hon. Lady and to the House a letter which I received from the Clerk of the Northamptonshire County Council. He states:
What my Council are bitterly fighting is the unwarranted and arrogant assumption by the Minister's officers that they know better than the Education Committee which are the most urgent and most important educational building projects required in this County. For two consecutive years this Guilsborough school has been given first priority in the programme submitted by my Committee and for two years some official at the Ministry—assuming that the Minister herself does not see the programme—has taken it upon himself to delete this project in favour of others which my Committee had placed at the bottom of the list.
As one who has spent 35 years on a local education authority, I think that if, in two successive years part of our programme had been deleted and we had asked to see the Minister I should have regarded it as a great affront to a great local governing body like a county council if the Minister had decided not to see us. This spirit of frustration is at large today because people feel that there is no desire on the part of the Minister to see this service grow, and if they find

that local feeling is ignored, they believe that she just does not care what happens.
I sincerely hope that in any reshuffling of the Government which is to take place, both Ministers in this Department will not be found in their present posts after the reshuffle.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Miss Horsbrugh.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I understood that I was the only Member on my feet, and I thought that I had the Floor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had called Miss Horsbrugh before the hon. Member rose.

9.0 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): I have, as the House will realise, a great many questions on a great many different topics to answer, and I shall do my best to deal with them all as quickly as I can. I can only speak until 9.30. When we considered the speakers for the debate, and I realised that it had to stop at 9.30 and also that we were to be interrupted at 7 o'clock, I thought that it was better, in view of the complaints last year that so few back benchers have been able to speak, that there should be only one speaker from the Government Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was available to answer any questions about finance if they had been asked.
On the occasion of our last debate, I thought it best to have only one Government speaker so that there might be more time for others, and on that occasion my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made the speech; so we have taken it in turns. Perhaps the best plan is to deal with the various questions which have been asked and not to go through the debate commenting on each speech.
The first point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) was about the building programme. She asked whether we were building enough schools, whether we were building more schools and whether we were building them more slowly or more quickly. I do not want to go through all the figures again, but I would say that there has been more educational building


work done in each year since I took office than was done before. There has been more building work done on primary and secondary schools. If necessary, I can give the figures.
On primary and secondary schools alone, in 1949, £21·3 million were spent; in 1950, £35·8 million were spent and in 1951 the figure was £35·5 million. It went down that year after the crisis of 1949. Figures for the next three years are: 1952, £36·4 million; 1953, £40·3 million; and done or to be done in 1954, £40·7 million. If we take educational building as a whole the figures are: 1949, £38 million; 1950, £49·7 million, and 1951, £48·3 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "But money has lost its value."] All these figures are on 1951 prices.
In 1951, the figure was £48·3 million and in 1952, the year when I was told that we had cut building, the figure went up to £50·1 million. That was work done. In 1953 it was £54·3 million, and in 1954 we hope to spend £55·1 million.

Miss Bacon: Classes are getting bigger.

Miss Horsbrugh: I will come to that. I have not very long in which to speak, but if I am not interrupted I will answer every question that has been put.
We are putting the emphasis on the secondary schools and away from the primary schools. In June of this year the number of primary school places under construction was 143,940—a decrease of 22·4 per cent. In secondary school places, there was an increase of 20·1 per cent. The amount being done is more, but gradually the emphasis is being put on secondary school places.

Mr. Morley: And 100 fewer schools were started.

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman will let me continue, I think that I can give most of the facts which hon. Members have asked for. We are doing more school building and more educational building than has ever been done before. I think that we have got the work better organised, and schools are being built more quickly. The work on some was taking up to four years in the earlier days, and my predecessor, the late Mr. George Tomlinson, pointed out in Birmingham in 1950 that they were taking too long and were too expensive.
There has been a progressive improvement. Perhaps I might put the cost in this way. For £1 million in 1949 there were provided 2,800 secondary school places. There has been an improvement, gradual at first but better later, and now for £1 million instead of 2,800 places we get about 4,000.

Mr. G. Thomas: Thanks to George Tomlinson.

Miss Horsbrugh: I have made this point clear; my predecessor, the late Mr. George Tomlinson, said in 1950 that they were taking too long.

Mr. Thomas: Credit is due to him.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Member will agree that I have pointed that out—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have pointed out that gradually architects and those interested in schools and local authorities have all got together to speed up the building of schools. I think they have done a very good job.
At present, for primary school building, we have under construction places for 185,000. That is to cope with the further increase of 80,000 which will be coming into the primary schools. I give these figures to show the House that it is not merely the number of children we have to cope with, but the distribution of the population. We have to see that there are more places than the actual number of children, because we shall have empty places in some cases in the towns where people have moved out to new housing estates. There extra schools have to be provided. In the same way with the programme we now have for the secondary schools, I am convinced, that what is planned now will be sufficient for the extra children as they come into the secondary schools.
The next subject is the right type of secondary school. Several hon. Members have pointed out that in some cases there are not enough grammar school places, and in some cases it has been suggested there may be either too many or a great many more than are required. It is difficult to get a really good view of this situation for the following reasons. In certain areas few children are going to maintained or assisted grammar schools, but they may be going to direct-grant grammar schools, or to independent schools, and there have been extensions of existing secondary schools. We have


the provision of selective places in secondary technical and modern schools, in other words where the technical stream or grammar stream is added to an existing school. At present 54 local education authorities are building grammar schools. We are watching and discussing with them whether we should increase the number of grammar schools, technical schools, or modern schools.
I now come to the subject of rural reorganisation. A great deal has been said about Circular 245. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) read out parts of that circular and he read them out quite correctly.

Mr. Cove: Ten out of 10.

Miss Horsbrugh: We noticed how he read it—as some people have not read it in the past—that that particular policy must "still" be carried on. The word "still" is perfectly correct. Why should it be there? It is because I was carrying on the policy laid down by the Labour Government—

Mr. Cove: That does not excuse it.

Miss Horsbrugh: —I think quite rightly. It was laid down in December, 1947, in Circular 155:
Since it will be essential to avoid new building wherever possible, the Minister will require to be assured in each case that there are no existing premises which can reasonably be used to meet the need.
The policy was laid down that building should be done in order to get the extra number of children into the schools, and that there should not be building either for decrowding or reorganisation. At a later date that was again confirmed.
I can tell the House that when I went to the Ministry and saw this, I should have liked to change that policy. I should have liked to make other suggestions, but I came to the conclusion that the policy laid down by my predecessor was right, and that if we changed that policy we should have to change something else— the compulsory school age of from five to 15. We should have had to do so because we should not have had sufficient schools built to get the children in. Hon. Members may check that as much as they like, but these are the facts, that unless we keep that priority—I am coming to some other points about reorganisation in a

moment—all children would not be in school.

Mr. Cove: Dr. Alexander says—

Miss Horsbrugh: I am not bothering with what Dr. Alexander says.
I have always claimed that reorganisation would be a by-product of our building of new secondary schools, and I think that is being proved to be so. I have already said that the main emphasis is now going into the building of secondary schools, and, as that emphasis goes on, I think we shall see that reorganisation is a by-product continuing—

Mr. Harold Davies: Would the right hon. Lady—

Miss Horsbrugh: No. The number of 13 and 14 year-old children in all-age schools has declined from 16·9 per cent. in January, 1951, to 14–3 per cent. in January, 1953. In 10 typical rural counties I have programmed since taking office more than 40 secondary modern projects, which, when completed, will enable 225 all-age schools to be reorganised. We are getting to the stage where, because of increased numbers, keeping within Circular 245, we can build new secondary modem schools large enough to take in the children from all-age schools.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): If the right hon. Lady does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry, but I wish to answer all the questions that have been put, and I have only until 9.30 p.m. to do so.
In those areas alone, the number of all-age schools was reduced—a lot of it was in my predecessor's time—by 420 between January, 1947, and January, 1953.
I have looked at the case of Berkshire, because my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) put a point with which I thoroughly agreed. I think that hon. Members know of my interest in education in rural areas and in keeping the children in their villages and giving them their education in the country areas. In fact, on many occasions in this House and outside I have been criticised for not allowing the closing of village schools. I feel it is enormously


important that country children should have their education, when possible, in the country and that the small children, above all, should have it in their own villages.
I could give examples in many counties but I will deal only with Berkshire, as time presses. In 1947, there were 115 all-age schools and departments; by 1954 that number had been reduced to 59. Twenty-three schools and departments will certainly be reorganised when the new secondary schools now under construction or programmed are completed, nearly all of them in rural areas. In addition, 14 others, all but one in rural areas, will probably be reorganised when these new schools are ready.
So the schools are under construction, or in progress. I should like to see more rapid progress, but the fact is that the amount of building we are doing and our efforts to get the children into the schools and to reduce the size of classes makes it impossible to do all we should like to do at once. I would only say that between 1947 and 1955, in five local authority areas which I have picked at random the reorganisation has meant a reduction of 244 schools.
It has been said that I have cut the programmes of local authorities. Each year local authorities send in proposals for the number of schools which they woud like to build. It has been clear that we have to keep—as my predecessor did, and I think he was right, within the scheme outlined in Circular 245—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poor old George!"] I think it only fair, when I say that I think his policy was right, that I should defend him from this Box, if no one else does.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East gave certain examples, and I wish also to give some. How is it that some proposals sent in by local education authorities are not accepted? I will say straight away to the hon. Lady that many local authorities who are anxious to build put in for far more than they could do, even if they got the authority. Hon. Members may say, "Ah, but they would not be able to do so, because the planning authority would not pass it" But it need not of necessity be passed by the planning authority. In many cases local authorities think that if they put in a large list some may be cut out, but the bigger the list the more they will

get—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]— that is a known fact. I shall give one or two examples, bearing in mind that we must keep within the terms of Circular 245.
One small county borough, where the secondary school classes were very small, asked for a programme amounting to £330,000 to enable it to rebuild two large secondary schools. Authority was not given. In those schools there were small classes and plenty of room. Another rural authority asked for approval for work amounting to £600,000. It was given a programme costing £82,000 in order to do one urgent job which was justified under the terms of Circular 245.

Dr. King: Will the Minister name these authorities?

Miss Horsbrugh: One authority asked for a programme amounting to £1,360,000 and it got a programme of £433,000. On its past performance I am doubtful if it would have been able even to start such a building programme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give the names."] I shall give one, but I wish to get on.

Miss Bacon: Will the right hon. Lady give the name of the authority asking for the £l million programme?

Miss Horsbrugh: It was Northumberland, which the hon. Lady mentioned.
As we go on with the programme—even if it is exactly on the same basis as at present with no increases whatsoever—by 1960 there will probably be accommodation for about 40 per cent. more children than were in school in 1947. A few years later there are likely to be only about 20 per cent. more children in the schools than in 1947. As the school population passes its peak, we shall—as we shall soon begin to do—have more and more empty places in certain schools; and at that time I hope that we shall be able to stop using a lot of unsatisfactory accommodation.
As for improvements and repairs, as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said, there are many schools which could be improved enormously. She referred to dark and dreary schools, and she was quite right. But with repainting, and similar improvements, they would be made into good schools, from the point of view both of the teachers and of the children.
What I have done is to increase the amount allocated for minor works. This year it is £5·8 million; when I took office it was a little over £3 million. Out of that amount, £2·4 million at least may be used on improvements; the rest may be needed for enlargements. Repairs are entirely a matter for local education authorities. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-Feast that there are schools which ought to be painted and would look much more cheerful if properly repaired and painted. That is the responsibility of local education authorities. I have asked Her Majesty's Inspectors to report places where repairs and upkeep are not properly attended to. I have had some reports, and have taken the matter up.
The hon. Lady said that when the Labour Government were in office the size of classes was smaller and that under the Conservative Government the size of classes has increased. What is the reason? The highest intake into the schools has occurred during the last two years; the total has been about 500,000. I am glad to say that we are now past the worst. The teachers for these children had already been recruited and trained, and we could not do anything more about it during those two years. I am not blaming those in the Labour Government who were in charge. The fact remains that the teachers who had been recruited—it takes two years to train a teacher—were taking up posts at the time that we had this enormous increase in the number of school children. At that time no one could do anything about it.
I am glad to say that the size of classes is now going down because we have increased building and recruiting. The cheerful thing this year is that we are past the worst. The effect of the increase in the number of children will now be more gradual; we experienced the peak during the last two years. The figures for school buildings and recruitment of teachers are now increasing more rapidly, and from now onwards we shall see a distinct improvement.
As the hon. Lady said, the number of oversized classes in primary schools is 3 per cent. higher than in 1950. At the same time the numbers of such classes in secondary schools is 4 per cent. lower. We knew that the last few years would

be the most difficult. Now the peak in primary schools has passed. In future buildings and teachers will increase in greater measure than in the past in relation to the increase in the number of children.
Last year was a record year for recruitment of teachers, the number accepted for the training colleges being 8,360 women and 2,120 men at this time. This year acceptances for women are 8,960, so that we have beaten last year's record. It is the same in the case of the men. We now have an opportunity to get a decrease in the over-large classes. The opportunity must be granted.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) said; it is in the minds of all of us. What will happen next? Will the schools admit children under five and restore the pressure to what it was? I am communicating with the local authorities. I am not discussing but putting the problem to them; I believe that we all agree upon it. The regulation at present provides for 40 children in a primary school class.
What I am putting to the local education authorities is that I would not waive the regulation if a figure in excess of 40 would be brought about by the admission of children under five. Nor shall I consider that it is right to use a school hall if it is being done for the purpose of admitting children under five, and by children under five I mean children admitted at the beginning of the term at which they become five years of age. In that way, during the next term we shall see some improvement there. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the comprehensive schools?"] I can come now to the comprehensive schools and leave out the technical schools, but there was something I wanted to say on selection at 11 plus, but I shall only say that I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The experiment has been going on, and I think we are getting to the stage when there will be much more flexibility.
Now I want to say something about the comprehensive schools. It has been suggested that I will not approve comprehensive schools and that when proposals for comprehensive schools come before me I reject them. Let me give these figures. There are 21 comprehensive schools, or instalments of such schools, now under construction in England and Wales,


and of these I myself have programmed and approved the plans of 18. Of the 12 under construction in London, I have programmed and approved plans of no less than 10, and the London County Council are working on plans of five more which I have included in their programme. There are eight comprehensive schools now in existence in London, 12 are under construction, five are in an approved programme, six have been approved under Section 13 but are not yet programmed, and one has been rejected.
I rejected one—the Bec School—for these reasons. It is a good school, giving good education. Parents in that area who wish to send their children to a comprehensive school will soon find that there will be three in that area—the Wands-worth area—or very nearby, and they will have a choice. Parents who do not wish to send their children there will still have the choice of the grammar school. The Bec School is a good school. I want to see experiments all the time, but I will

not agree to destroy what has been proved to be good.

Mr. Harold Davies: I did not want to interrupt the right hon. Lady during her speech, but may I now ask her if she will answer one question? Will she give some priority to rural areas for secondary modern schools to meet the difficulties which have arisen in the winter in parts of Staffordshire?

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman will look at HANSARD tomorrow, he will see what I have said about that.

It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 248.

Division No. 206.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Colegate, W. A.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hay, John


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Heath, Edward


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Arbuthnot, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crouch, R. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hollis, M. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Deedes, W. F.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Banks, Col. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Barlow, Sir John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C E. McA
Horobin, I. M.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Donner, Sir P. W.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Doughty, C. J. A
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Drayson, G. B.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Duthie, W. S.
Hurd, A. R.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Birch, Nigel
Erroll, F. J.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Fell, A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Black, C. W.
Finlay, Graeme
Iremonger, T. L.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jennings, Sir Roland


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fort, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Braine, B. R.
Foster, John
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Kaberry, D.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gammans, L. D.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Kerr, H. W.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G Lloyd
Lambert, Hon. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Glover, D.
Lambton, Viscount


Bullard, D. G.
Godber, J. B.
Leather, E. H. C


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Lindsay, Martin


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gower, H. R.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Llewellyn, D. T.


Campbell, Sir David
Grimston, Hon. James (St. Albans)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Carr, Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Channon, H.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Longden, Gilbert


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Low, A. R. W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Cole, Norman
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)




McAdden, S. J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Storey, S.


McKibbin, A. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Studholme, H. G.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Summers, G. S.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, Wt.)
Pitman, I. J.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Teeling, W.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ramsden, J. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Marples, A. E.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Redmayne, M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Maude, Angus
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Maudling, R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Tilney, John


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Turner, H. F. L.


Mellor, Sir John
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Turton, R. H.


Molson, A. H. E.
Robson-Brown, W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Moore, Sir Thomas
Roper, Sir Harold
Vosper, D. F.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Russell, R. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Neave, Airey
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Nicholls, Harmar
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wall, Major Patrick


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Watkinson, H. A.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Shepherd, William
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wellwood, W.


Nutting, Anthony
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Oakshott, H. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Odey, G. W
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


O'Niell, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
Wills, G.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Speir, R. M
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard



Osborne, C.
Stevens, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Page, R. G.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Legh.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Adams, Richard
Crosland, C. A. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Albu, A. H.
Grossman, R. H. S.
Hale, Leslie


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Daines, P.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hamilton, W. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hannan, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hargreaves, A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Balrd, J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hastings, S.


Balfour, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hayman, F. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Deer, G.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Bartley, P.
Delargy, H. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dodds, N. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Benson, G.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Beswick, F.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hobson, C. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Holman, P.


Blackburn, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holmes, Horace


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Holt, A. F.


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Houghton, Douglas


Boardman, H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hoy, J. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Bowen, E. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bowles, F. G.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Foot, M. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Forman, J. C.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Callaghan, L. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Carmichael, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Glanville, James
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Champion, A. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Chapman, W. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Clunie, J.
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Coldrick, W.
Grenfelt, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grey, C. F.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Keenan, W.







Kenyon, C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Pannell, Charles
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


King, Dr. H. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Swingler, S. T.


Lawson, G. M.
Parker J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Parkin, B. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Paton, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Lewis, Arthur
Porter, G
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thornton, E.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Tomney, F


Logan, D. G
Proctor, W. T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


MacColl, J. E.
Pryde, D. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McInnes, J,
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Viant, S. P.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rankin, John
Wade, D. W.


McLeavy, F.
Reeves, J.
Wallace, H. W.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Warbey, W. N.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Watkins, T. E.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, H.
Weitzman, D.


Manuel, A. C.
Richards, R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
West, D. G.


Mayhew, C. P.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mellish, R. J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Messer, Sir F.
Ross, William
Wigg, George


Mitchison, G. R.
Royle, C
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A B


Moody, A. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Willey, F. T.


Morley, R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Short, E. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wiilliams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mulley, F. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wilson, Rt. Hon,. Harold (Huyton)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Skeffington, A. M.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


O'Brien, T.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Oldfield, W. H.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Orbach, M.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Yates, V. F.


Oswald, T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Padley, W. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank



Paget, R. T.
Sparks, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Steele, T.
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates and of the Revenue Departments Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55

CLASS I

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates.
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS II

COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions

reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates.
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS III

HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates.
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS IV

EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates.
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS V

HEALTH, HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution


reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates.
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI

TRADE, LABOUR, MATERIALS AND SUPPLY

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates.
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VII

COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, &C.)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates.
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VIII

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS IX

TRANSPORT, FUEL, POWER, AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS X

PENSIONS, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND NATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1954–55

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1954–55

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,
put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1954–55

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1954–55

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Army Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1954–55

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Air Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [22nd July]

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, the sum of £2,479,769,524, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

MINISTRY OF MATERIALS (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS)

9.44 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-shank): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Materials) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 15th July.
It is just over a year ago that I moved a Motion, somewhat similar to this, involving the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Pensions. This time the Motion is to absorb the Ministry of Materials into the Board of Trade, and all the Order does, by Article 2, is to dissolve the Ministry and transfer its remaining functions to the Board of Trade.
The circumstances of today are very different from those of 1951, when the Ministry was established and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) took charge of it. There was then the Korean War, the accelerated rearmament programme and the stockpiling which was put in hand. Those factors indicated at that time that there might be a shortage of raw materials for many years to come and, no doubt, that was what influenced our predecessors in setting up the Ministry.
Actually, the period of stringency was much shorter than anybody had foreseen. In fact, by the middle of last year it was possible to discuss winding up the International Materials Conference which was an essential part of this organisation. So the need for this Department has rapidly diminished, quite apart from the fact that it is our policy, as a Government, to dismantle controls and to end public trading in raw materials. The conjunction of those two factors makes this Order possible tonight.
The bulk of this public trading in raw materials will have been completed by the end of this financial year. Indeed, it is already far advanced and, if I may give one figure, it is anticipated that by the end of this financial year about £1,400,000 of terminal stocks will have been disposed of, to a sales value of about £125 million at fair market prices without any serious disturbance to trade. Great skill has been shown in timing these disposals, and as

we part with this Ministry we should congratulate those who have been so efficient in this disposal work.
The staff of the Ministry has already very largely been reduced. From the maximum figure of 1,850 which it reached it was down to 800 at the beginning of this month. The result is that the work which now remains to be done, though important, does not really justify the whole apparatus of a separate Department—that is to say, the higher management, the Minister, the separate branches dealing with finances, with establishment and with central services. Therefore, if the House passes this Order that Ministry will be dissolved.
The question is to whom should the remaining functions go, the remaining functions being what still remain of State trading and its disposal, the disposal of the remaining trading stocks, the stockpile policy and general work about commodities. That being what is left to do, the answer, I am sure, is quite obvious to all hon. Members, and that is that it is quite natural for the Board of Trade to take over those remaining functions. It all fits in, and it is a very neat solution.
There will not be any immediate spectacular staff reduction, of course, but comparatively soon one can anticipate at least a 10 per cent. further reduction, about 80 being dispensed with—perhaps £45,000 or £55,000 off the expenditure— and the fact that the remaining staff will go over to the Board of Trade will not, I think, be distasteful to them, because when the Ministry was originally set up about 80 per cent, of its staff came from the Board of Trade, so they are really going back home.
The Board of Trade is a large Department, but its general work is such that it can take on this additional burden quite easily. Perhaps I might point out that the Board of Trade's staff itself has been very considerably reduced. In fact, the figure is 20 per cent. since we took office. So we have got the big reductions already in the Ministry of Materials staff, and we have the reductions in the Board of Trade's staff, though now with this change-over, the Board of Trade staff will increase very considerably. I think the whole House will probably agree that this is the tidy solution to this problem, and will accept it—at least, I hope so.
I do not think I need explain the Order, because it is common form. Article 2 is the effective one, transferring the functions to the Board of Trade, and Article 3 is the routine Article dealing with a number of subsidiary matters. I hope that the House will agree that this is a wise step to take. If it approves the Order it will mean that one more of the large number of Departments which now exist in the Administration will be brought to a triumphant conclusion.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. R. R. Stokes: In presenting this Order the Lord Privy Seal stated that the result of abolishing the Ministry of Materials would not lead to any spectacular reductions in staff, any more than it had led to an increase in staff, globally, when the Ministry was formed in 1951 and I was appointed Minister of Materials.

Mr. Crookshank: I said "no spectacular immediate reductions.".

Mr. Stokes: If the right hon. Gentleman means that it may drip away, that is what we all hope for, as long as it does so very quickly. I am referring to the Government, of course. Perhaps I misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman to that extent. In that case, it must be hope deferred.
When I introduced the Bill setting up the Ministry in 1951, I never for one moment suggested that it would lead to any reduction in staff. All I said was that I hoped it would not lead to any increase, and I do not think I am overstating the position when I say that we succeeded in forming a Ministry without any substantial increase in the number of civil servants employed.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the staff is now going back to the Board of Trade. My own view, as an industrialist, is that the Board of Trade is already far too large. The whole organisation is far too complicated. I have not yet seen a Minister—I have not been appointed myself; of course, I should then recognise him—who was capable of conducting the Board of Trade. I do not think it is humanly possible. At this moment, to say, "This Ministry is no longer necessary; we will wind it up and give back the staff to the Board of Trade," is small comfort to those of us who are interested in seeing

a more efficient handling of our trading conditions.
I did not detect anything which was said by the Lord Privy Seal to be a criticism of the action of my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister in deciding to form the Ministry of Materials, with the possible exception that he might have criticised my appointment. The fact is that we were then faced with very acute shortages. The Board of Trade was very much overburdened, and I think it was right to change over then, so that somebody, at a time when raw materials were short, prices were high, the scarcity was likely to become more rather than less acute, and the danger of war was far more intense than it is today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—through no fault of any Government of this country, could give his mind to the vitally important matter of focusing attention upon the supply of essential raw materials, the greater proportion of which—I was going to say 90 per cent., but that may not be the right figure; it includes everything but coal and iron ore—comes from outside the country, when demands upon our industrial machine were becoming ever greater.
I agree that times have changed—thank Heaven. If the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) will think about it before putting his "swede" on the "downy" tonight—the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a friend of mine and will understand the implication—he will have to accept the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has done a bunk, probably because he was afraid of what I was going to say, had it handed to him on a platter.
At the time when, to the disadvantage of this country, the Labour Pary lost office, in 1951, prices were high and materials scarce. One of the things that has happened is that the price of materials all over the world have dropped and supplies correspondingly have become more plentiful. That is not as a result of the wizardry with which the Chancellor is now credited. It is not the result of his great intelligence. I accept that he is a very intelligent and capable Chancellor. I accept all that, but, goodness gracious, he did not know for certain this was going to happen, any more than I did.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Stokes: I did not know, because I am not the Almighty. No one knew these prices would drop and that materials would become more plentiful as and when they have. All the nonsense that politicians talk—[Interruption.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are now the Government, and I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite applaud the nonsense the Government talk. However, the Chancellor could not possibly have foreseen that prices would drop and that materials would become plentiful. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite take the trouble to study those minutes of evidence that are available to them behind the scenes they will find that my right hon. Friend who was President of the Board of Trade and I were practically entirely right in our anticipation of what was likely to happen.
However, leaving that aside, because there is no use boasting about this, if the Government insist on pursuing the charge of the Gadarene swine down the unstoppable slope towards a return to private enterprise everywhere, this is not the time for me to attempt to stop them. Nor do I wish to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Not for the reason that hon. Gentlemen think. I know that the intended sneer is that I am a great supporter of private enterprise. Well, I am, within reason. I am frank about it. I am, within reason; but I am wholeheartedly in favour of the restriction and control of private enterprise where it interferes with the welfare of the people as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Even of the right hon. Gentleman's own business."] Hon. Gentlemen can have all I have got if that should be for the general welfare. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters are prepared, as I suppose they are prepared, to career down this non-stop slippery slope, the sooner they get there the better, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order. I consulted you, Mr. Speaker, before this debate took place, about the scope of the debate, and you informed me, very kindly, that this scope was exceedingly narrow, merely the administrative act of transfer of the remaining functions of the

Ministry of Materials to the Board of Trade. In those circumstances, if the right hon. Gentleman's speech, ranging over the whole of the economic implications of raw material supplies, is in order, will it not be in order to discuss jute and newsprint?

Mr. Speaker: The answer shortly to the hon. Member is in the negative. As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman was arguing that materials are more plentiful nowadays than they were when the Ministry of Materials was instituted. That struck me as relevant to the Order, but further digression into wider questions of economics would be out of order on this little Order before us.

Mr. Nabarro: You have kindly ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that materials are more plentiful. May I say, with great respect, that that was precisely my argument to you—that newsprint and jute are more plentiful—and is it not, therefore, in order for me to speak on these matters?

Mr. Speaker: That would be going far too far. The existing controls are merely transferred by this Order. This Order does not in itself affect the existence of the controls, nor does it bring in the discussion of materials which are now affected by the controls. Therefore, these two branches of the discussion are out of order. The general argument that the Ministry of Materials was properly set up at one time and is now being properly abolished is, I think, germane.

Mr. Stokes: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that Ruling, and I will endeavour not to stray. I said that I would endeavour. If you, Mr. Speaker, would like an assurance, I will undertake not to digress from the economic problem into the panacea of the taxation and rating of site values tonight.
One always likes to remind the House of what one said before. What I said on 27th June, 1951, when talking on this question of the formation of the Ministry of Materials, in concluding a speech on which I had better not comment, was this:
There is no permanent cure for the Communist menace by force. There is no such way out, although we may deter it for the time being. The long-term cure is the steady improvement in the standard of living of the masses of the people everywhere. That surely means better use, better availability and better


distribution of essential raw materials."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 1411–12.]
That is the note on which I want to conclude my remarks tonight. What I want to learn from the Lord Privy Seal, if he can get permission from the House to speak again, or from some other Minister, is this: What is their intended policy with regard to the long-term problem? We know perfectly well that there is no cure for this long-term problem except by increased supply of capital goods everywhere, and we know—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is now referring to the long-term problem and policy for raw materials. That is exactly what I am anxious to refer to. You have ruled me out of order, Mr. Speaker. Why is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that?

Mr. Speaker: I should like to call attention to the fact that this Order does not really affect the long-term policy of the Government with regard to materials. It merely changes over the control of these materials from one Department to another. The Order itself mentions no change of policy, and, indeed, there is no policy in the Order at all; there is merely machinery and nothing else.

Mr. Stokes: The machinery was organised in my day for the purpose of focusing attention on the essential problem of supplying raw materials for all needs the world over. I do not want to go into foreign affairs at all, but I want to know what the Lord Privy Seal intends, and who is to be responsible for seeing to it that what we regarded—and surely I am entitled to argue this when the Ministry is being dissolved—as an essential point when the Ministry was formed, namely, that not only should it look after the short and long-term needs of materials supplied to this country—taking them out of the Board of Trade because we thought that the Board of Trade had too much to do—but also that it should pay attention and prod, prick and poke the various Departments responsible for development in the Commonwealth Relations Office and the local office into making greater efforts to produce more. That surely is germane to this discussion. While I do not want to argue on quantities and values, I do want

to know what the Lord Privy Seal is proposing shall take the place of this Ministry which, until today, was focused, but was not focused as it ought to have been, on the essential problem of ensuring that these raw materials within the Commonwealth are sufficiently supplied to enable us to meet the requirements of the backward nations.
I want specially to emphasise that in his considerations the Lord Privy Seal should leave out the humbug of finance in replying to me, as I hope he will. It does not look as if he had any intention whatever of getting on to his feet again, but I seriously ask this question. I had the matter particularly at heart when I was Minister, and it led to the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministers to discuss the problem. Who is now to be responsible? Is it to be the President of the Board of Trade?

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Yes.

Mr. Stokes: We took it away from the President of the Board of Trade because we thought that the Board of Trade had too much to do. Now the Government are giving it back because the Department has too little to do. My experience of the Board of Trade is that it already does a great deal too much and my suspicion is that this essential work will go by default. I should like to hear from the Lord Privy Seal that there really is something in the mind of the Government to deal with the matter.
The second point about which I should like to hear something, if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to inform me, is what is to be done about the very important question of the international share-out of raw materials. It is no use thinking that because there is a plentiful supply at cheap prices at present that state of affairs will continue indefinitely. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read the Paley Report. I do not suppose that he has read it, and I doubt very much whether anybody on the Government Front Bench have, either. It is a most portentious Report, and anybody interested in the supply of raw materials should give time for it. By these remarks, I do not mean to suggest that the officers in the Board of Trade have not read it.
The Paley Report states that by 1975 there will be a 15 per cent. overall shortage of the essential raw materials judged on the basis of today's progressive increase in demand. That statement has not been altered by anything which has happened since the Labour Government left office. Who is to attend to that matter? This is really important. I am not playing politics about whether the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Materials should do it; but at the time I had something to do with it. My tenure of office was unfortunately interrupted by my sortie to try to assuage the ambitions of Dr. Mossadeq, and that interfered with my progress at the Ministry of Materials, after which there was a General Election.
However, I conceived the main importance of my job to be the solving of the long-term problem—not merely the international materials conference problem, and so on, but the long-term problem of this comprehensive survey, introduced as a result of the initiative of President Truman which showed that there would be a 15 per cent. overall shortage in 1975. The job was to deal with that problem and to decide how that shortage was to be met. As far as I have observed, nothing whatever has been done in the Commonwealth or in the Colonies to attempt to put this right. There are enormous resources which ought to be developed which, while they could not primarily be the responsibility of the Minister of Materials—

Mr. Nabarro: Before you resumed the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it was ruled by your predecessor that questions affecting the availability of raw materials and the method of procurement did not come within the provisions of the Order. As the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech has become a dissertation on the availability of raw materials, can it possibly be in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) had given me a moment I was just about to stop the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes).

Mr. Stokes: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Order deals with the transfer of the Ministry of Materials to the Board of Trade. The reason why the control of materials was taken away from

the President of the Board of Trade was not because he was incompetent. He was highly respectable, very intelligent ex-Law Officer of the Crown when I was given the job. There was nothing incompetent about him, but it was a case of overloading the camel. My right hon. Friend will forgive me for calling him that, but you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will understand what I mean.
What I am trying to say to the House is not that I insist that the Government should drop this Motion. No, what I am asking for is some indication to us of an assurance that provision will be made whereby these very essential requirements, which we had so much at heart when we formed the Ministry of Materials at the time when the Board of Trade was equally overloaded as it is today, will be properly and efficiently carried out. I could go off into a discussion of foreign affairs, but you would not allow me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the right hon. Member could argue that one more straw would break the camel's back.

Mr. Stokes: Without pursuing the exact description of my late right hon. Friend—which of course does not apply at all—with great respect to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I want to hear what Her Majesty's Government are to do about seeing that the right developments take lace, not only in the Commonwealth and Colonies, but that the share out at an international level is done on a proper basis to ensure that we do not have frightful waves and slumps which upset the whole economic structure of the world, but that some Minister of the Crown shall be definitely responsible and have his mind focused on the question so that these things can be ironed out and fair shares given to all the nations in order to overcome the Communist menace.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I am sure the right hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House, but he said that the only raw materials in this country are coal and iron ore. I hope he will not forget tin in Cornwall.

Mr. Stokes: I must really answer that because I was brought up in Cornwall. The tin miners of Cornwall know my concern about their position. Had it been in order, I would have asked the


Lord Privy Seal what on earth the Government will do to encourage the tin miners, because they have done nothing yet.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I hope that I shall have 10 per cent. of the licence which the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has taken on this Order so that I can make one or two remarks. I view this Order with some mixed feelings. I am always glad when action is taken by my right hon. Friends to reduce Government Departments and, however small the gain may be—here, it is small—to reduce the population of the Civil Service.
I did not like one phrase the Lord Privy Seal used after referring to the small reduction, that the remainder would be going home to the Board of Trade. Some of us would be happier if they were going home to industry instead. I am a little perplexed because, under the Order, the Ministry of Materials is being dissolved and the functions of the Ministry are being transferred to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Member for Ipswich spent a lot of time talking about things which, in addition, he would like transferred to the Board of Trade. I think that opposite to that view from this side of the House is the feeling that some things, such as newsprint—of which we are short and of which the Government are holding up supplies by these regulations—should be transferred and go "into the dustbin" so to speak.
I gather that I cannot continue very far in that direction. I do notice, however in the Order, in Article 3 (2) it is stated:
Anything in process of being done by or in relation to the Minister of Materials at the time of the coming into operation of this Order…may be continued by or in relation to the Board of Trade.
I do feel, in view of that, that we are entitled to ask, as I do ask, my right hon. Friend or whoever is to reply to the debate, what precisely those functions are. Is there anything in those functions that gives any hope, for instance, that some of the restrictions on newsprint and jute can be reduced? I mention that because those are the two functions to which my right hon. Friend referred when he said

that the question was to whom the remaining functions were to be passed. I do not wish to pursue that line—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Order covers the lot, whatever they may be.

Mr. Hirst: Anything in process of being done is transferred to the Board of Trade. Are we not entitled to ask what process is going on, and what is being transferred, and not have to accept the Order without the slightest knowledge of what is being transferred. That is what is honestly and legitimately concerning some of us here tonight.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we can discuss that. It is simply transferred from one Department to another.

Mr. Hirst: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I only want guidance.
It seems to me extraordinary that the Government can come to this House and get an affirmative Resolution, as this is, to transfer various functions, etc., from one Ministry to another, and we are not allowed to discuss, or literally to know, what these precise functions are.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. In Article 2 of this Order the words appear:
The Ministry of Materials is hereby dissolved and the functions of the Minister of Materials are hereby transferred to the Board of Trade.
What my hon. Friend and I are anxious to know is why it is out of order for us to argue against the transfer of those functions.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not say that that was out of order. In fact, I said that the argument that one more straw might break the camel's back was in order.

Mr. Nabarro: Am I to conclude from what you said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is in order to argue against the transfer of certain specific functions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No.

Mr. Hirst: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is clear on that point. I am not, because I should have thought that we could, on what you have just ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, argue that these functions should not be transferred in order to draw attention to the fact that we do not consider that those func-


tions, particularly in regard to newsprint, should be carried on, that it is about time they were all scrapped. If we can have an indication tonight that it is the intention of the Government to scrap those regulations and functions so far as these forbidden subjects are concerned, I should feel very much happier than I am in supporting the Government tonight.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of order. Before we go any further, do you not think it would be wise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you defined what is actually in order to discuss on this Order for the benefit of those of us who wish to contribute to the discussion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I think it sufficient if I tell hon. Members when they are out of order.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: We have here an Order which transfers certain functions from one Ministry to another. I submit that it is a transfer of particularly vital importance to this country. I do not wish to get out of order too soon—I know I shall do so sooner or later—but we have listened to a debate in which the importance of the technical knowledge of this country was stressed. This will entail the provision of the raw materials necessary to further the country's interests. What some of us are anxious to find out is why this Order is necessary and what advantages will be gained if it is carried. All we are told, in effect, by the Lord Privy Seal is that a few civil servants may be dismissed or found other appointments.
When this Order is put into force will the country's technical interests be safeguarded? I am not concerned about jute, newsprint, carpets, or anything else, but only with the general overall needs of the nation. I could talk in detail—I should be out of order in doing so—about things that were easily accessible to this country before, but, as the international situation develops, will become more difficult to acquire. We should be told what advantages will accrue to us if this Order is carried tonight.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I will not keep the House more than a few minutes, but I wish to make one observation and to ask two questions of my right hon.

Friend. I agree with the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) that the Board of Trade is far too big a Department for one man to control, and it appears to me that we are adding a burden to an already over-burdened Department. I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in that I think the Board of Trade is doing far too many jobs, and that it would be better for that Department and for industry as whole if many of its present functions were removed.
I think my right hon. Friend said that there will be a reduction in staff of about 10 per cent. as a result of this Order, and that 90 per cent. of the staff would be "going home." Afterwards, my right hon. Friend said that that, of course, did not make much difference, because 80 per cent. were originally from the Board of Trade and would be going back there. I wish to ask why the extra 10 per cent. is required in the Board of Trade to carry on fewer functions than existed before the Ministry of Materials was set up? My right hon. Friend said that there would be a reduction of only 10 per cent. and that 90 per cent. would be going back to the Board of Trade—[HON. MEMBERS: "Immediately."]—I thought my right hon. Friend said on a long-term basis.

Mr. Crookshank: Mr. Crookshankindicated dissent.

Mr. Osborne: Before this Order can become operative, about £125 million worth of stocks are being sold, so that the functions to be transferred to the Board of Trade may be lightened. It was said earlier that the total losses of the Department had been roughly, £55 million. It was also said earlier that when the right hon. Member for Ipswich was responsible for this Department which is now about to die, it was making considerable profits. I wish to ask, if it is in order, what were the total profits made when prices were rising and the Department was charging industry more than current prices—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think that that point arises. This is only a transfer. Whether there were losses or profits, they have to be transferred.

Mr. Osborne: All I am asking for is information. I think it important that we should know and all I ask is that before the functions are transferred from one Department to another—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I did not say that it was not important. I said that it did not arise on this Order.

Mr. Osborne: In considering whether the functions shall be transferred from one Department to another, it is important to know the amount of profits and losses which have been accruing. I should have thought that we were entitled to ask for that information, but if it is out of order I shall resume my seat.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: As I happen to represent one of the functions being transferred, namely, newsprint, I wish to say a word—which I hope will not be out of order—of valediction to the Ministry which is about to disappear. We have been in the hands, first, of the Ministry of Supply, then of the Board of Trade, and, for the last three or four years, of the Ministry of Materials —in fact, throughout the whole life of that Ministry.
I think it would be ungracious if someone did not say a word of thanks for the courtesy with which we have been treated over the many problems with which we have had to grapple in conjunction with the Ministry.

Mr. Stokes: And the officials.

Mr. Bishop: Yes.
We have had discussions with successive Ministers. There is only one with whom I cannot recall having had an official meeting, and that was the first Minister, the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). It was only by an

unfortunate accident that we did not have the meeting. My chairman and vice-chairman and I went to the new Ministry one day. It was before the vast new building in Horseguards Avenue was fully organised. We were shown into a waiting room upstairs, where we remained for some time, and we might have remained there still if we had not got back to the methods of private enterprise to find out why we were still there and that we were lost and to make our way out. I do not blame the Minister for that happening. However, changes occurred—my hon. Friends and I must regard them as fortunate changes—which deprived us of the opportunity of a return engagement.
In the difficult problems which we have had to face we have been treated with uniform courtesy and efficiency by the successive Ministers and by the civil servants. Like the civil servants, in the words of my right hon. Friend, we are now going home to the Board of Trade, but not, we hope to spend a long time there. Although it would be out of order for me to say anything on the subject, we hope that our stay with the Board of Trade will be brief and that we shall once again soon be able to set up house for ourselves and manage our own affairs.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Materials) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 15th July.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

WHITE FISH SUBSIDY

10.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1954, dated 13th July, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.
The Scheme is made under the 1953 White Fish and Herring Industry Act, and is the second Order. The main purpose of the Act was to provide grants and loans for the rebuilding of near and middle water and inshore fleets and also to provide for the payment of subsidies for about five years to help those sections of the fishing industry in their known financial difficulties until they were able to stand on their own feet again.
The first Order expires at the end of July next year, but we are bringing in the new Scheme now so as to make certain revisions in the first Order, which was made a year ago. The first Order provided the basis for the assistance, which was a voyage insurance scheme, operating to assist fishing vessels in the near and middle waters which have unfortunate trips for one reason or another and are unable to make a sufficient return.
In addition, the first Order provided a flat rate payment of 4d. per stone for all fish landed except for the inshore vessels for which we provided 10d. per stone flat rate. The total value of the Order as it has been running and will run until the new Scheme supplants it, is about £2¼ million per annum. At the annual review of the industry which takes place in March we found that the 1953 results showed some improvement over those for 1952. The losses made in 1952 were materially reduced. If that was all that we had to consider, we might well have left the Order to run as it was for another year, but we have to take into account that in the current year there have been significant increases in costs, notably in coal and in labour costs for crews.
The fishing industry has also drawn attention to the fact that it is now using the larger mesh which has been introduced under the Overfishing Convention, which has been very successfully got going; but although we recognise that

this may be a factor we feel that it is not something which we should take account of in this financial operation. So, in considering what rate of subsidy to provide, we have had regard to the total average annual provision made under the 1953 Act. This is not much more than £2 million per annum.
It is quite clear that if we are already running at about £2¼ million per annum, any increase now must necessitate a lower rate in the latter part of the period of five years provided in the 1953 Act. Despite this, we feel justified in making an increase this year to help the industry in its present difficulties.
We are much concerned to see that the industry has sufficient finance in it at the present time to enable it to make full use of the grants for rebuilding and the loans at the same time. We propose, therefore, in the Scheme that there should be a further increase of about £250,000, which will make a total for the coming 12 months of £2½ million and will then bring the total value of the subsidy up to about 14 per cent. of the value of the fish caught.
This increased amount, we propose, should be added to the voyage insurance scheme to help those vessels which are in the greatest need; they are set out in the Schedule to the Scheme. It will also be noticed that we have made some revision of the structure of the scheme to make it apply more accurately to where it is most needed. We shall continue the subsidy of 4d. per stone flat rate unchanged, as before.
I should acknowledge that the fishing industry has asked for significantly more than we are granting, but I do not feel that the House would take the view that that would be justified within the provisions of the 1953 Act. Our problem really was to justify the increase of rate at all. Furthermore, if we increase the subsidy rates too much, instead of doing what we want to do to enable the industry to keep going while it is rebuilding, we might encourage rebuilding to an uneconomic level, so that eventually the industry is unable to stand on its own feet without subsidy. The inshore fishing industry has been running satisfactorily and showing better results in 1953, and so we propose to leave that rate of subsidy of 10d. per stone unchanged.
It may interest the House to know of the rate of rebuilding. For the near and middle water fleets, up to 30th June this year 29 vessels had been approved; a further 11 are under consideration. This can be regarded as fairly satisfactory. We should like to see the figures increased, but that is a satisfactory start in what is admitted to be a difficult position. For the inshore fleet, 81 new vessels and 72 new engines have been approved. I think that that indicates that the subsidy has been doing broadly what we intended it to do in the last year.
I believe that the provisions we are making in this new Scheme will enable the industry to keep operating. Although it is not quite all they have asked for, I believe it is a fair settlement, which will enable this important part of the nation's food supply to be continued as before, and, not least important, ensure a fair living to the men engaged in this hazardous undertaking. I know how strongly my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite from the fishing ports feel on that aspect. In the bad weather we have to face one loss, or sometimes more, and I assure the House we have given this matter most earnest thought to reach what we think is a fair balance in the interests of the industry on the one hand and of the public on the other.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Williams: First, I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, or commiserate with him—I do not know which—on his reprieve. Secondly, I ought to say at once that it is not our intention to divide the House against this Scheme. As usual, the hon. Gentleman has explained the Scheme and its objects so clearly that he has left little or no doubt or misunderstanding.
If the increased costs have been closely examined, and the accountants are well satisfied that there is no sort of exploitation and the subsidy was justified in 1953 it must be justified in 1954. I must say, however, that when this process began we all hoped it would be a temporary expedient, and we looked to the White Fish Authority to organise reorganisations or amalgamations and that kind of thing that would render the subsidies unnecessary. We were all disappointed, but this is hardly the moment to enter

into the wider question of general fishing industry problems.
As I understand, this Scheme merely amends the 1953 Order, makes small changes in the conditions for the grants, and slightly increases the rate, subject to the new conditions. The increase, as the Parliamentary Secretary states, amounts to approximately £250,000. The Act provided for a total payment not exceeding £10 million. I gather that for the 11 months they have been £2,064,000. There is no unlimited liability. There is a maximum payment per day: there is a maximum payment per voyage, so the Treasury are limited twice in their liabilities.
We all know something of the difficulties of the near, middle water and inshore fishermen while we are anxious to enjoy the luxury of the so-called quality white fish. We have all watched with dismay the diminishing returns per voyage since the war, largely due to over-fishing in the North Sea, but we are all glad to know that the White Fish Convention is now operating. I hope that immature fish will now be allowed to develop to a reasonable size, for unless they do, it must mean difficulties on the basis of diminishing returns, and more costly and more uneconomical voyages which near and middle fishermen make. I hope that all the countries associated with this Convention will play the game and observe the rules. On that condition alone will a supply of good white fish be available to us.
Unless we cease to take from the sea more than the annual increment, results will go down and we shall be back in the doldrums of the 1930s, with diminishing returns for each voyage for both trawler owners and their fishermen, and subsidies will have to go on for ever and ever. Without a subsidy, we shall have to go without the good quality white fish. I do not suppose that anybody would relish that. To maintain the supply at a reasonable price there are only three sources of income: consumers, trawler owners and fishermen, and the Treasury. If the proposed small investment will guarantee a constant supply of good quality white fish it will be well worth while.
I cannot imagine that the Ministry have given the trawler owners all they asked


for; neither can I imagine that the trawler owners have done all that the Government would like them to do. The Scheme is strictly limited for one year, but I cannot imagine how it can be discontinued in 1954. I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that on a more appropriate occasion we shall have various searching questions to put on the general scheme of fishing and particularly with regard to the activities of the White Fish Board that I had the privilege of setting up a few years back. We want to know just what its activities have resulted in, and whether or not it has let us down or has served the country well. The Scheme is fairly legitimate and reasonable, and the House ought to pass it.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Duthie: I welcome this Scheme most cordially. It is wanted because we are going through a period of trying to increase the number of fish in the sea. We have introduced new mesh sizes. I hope that the subsidy will give a fillip to fishermen to use a much bigger mesh, so that there will not be wholesale slaughter of immature fish for some considerable time. Thus we may rehabilitate the Dogger and other fishing grounds in the North Sea.
I would be sorry to see the subsidy higher. There is always the tendency, when money comes in in the form of a subsidy, for some people to take matters more easily and not have that final drag of the day which means taking the value of the catch up to a considerable size.
This is an extremely good Scheme and should be given a good try out. I hope that it will be welcomed by the mid-water and near-distance men, for whom help is needed at the present time. If the help is not given, we shall see force majeur in the fishing industry to break the law with regard to the size of mesh. I hope that that will be obviated.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: With some diffidence, I welcome the Scheme. As we all know, when the Government we supported introduced the subsidy some years ago, it was thought that the subsidy would be only temporary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) began it over

the period, when we were suffering from the grave disabilities of overfishing and when we were met with appalling costs, when there was very little rejuvenation of the fleet and when the industry itself was in a very bad way.
We know that although the Minister of Agriculture, or at any rate the Parliamentary Secretary, is responsible for this, the Scheme is really a Treasury scheme, because we know very well that the British Trawlers Federation, and those catchers who are members of that and responsible for the provision of capital in the industry, wanted a very considerable increase in the subsidy which, from their point of view, was quite reasonable to offset the appalling rise in the cost of running the industry.
Fuel costs during the last 12 months have risen, costs of labour and appurtenances have risen, as have means of carrying on this great industry, which is the fifth largest industry in the country, one in which a tremendous amount of capital is sunk, and which provides sustenance and has a high strategic value. It is extremely important from the national point of view, apart from the consumers and those who enjoy good fish, that this great industry should be kept at a maximum of efficiency. I submit this can be done only by getting fish of prime quality and variety.
Nothing did more damage to the fishing industry in reducing consumption in the period of the war, and immediately following the war, than the monotonous diet of cod, fish taken from far waters, because, as we know, the North Sea was prohibited. Fishermen and the fishing industry during those years went through a very trying time.
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), whose knowledge of this industry is unsurpassed in this House, knows very well that this industry cannot sustain itself in the future unless we conserve the fish. It is with that object in mind that this subsidy has been made available to the industry. We do not envisage it going on for ever. It was a temporary measure to start with. How proud I am to say that my own port of Lowestoft is in the van of this rejuvenation of the fleet—I think we have at least half, if not more, of the new modern diesel engine vessels.
It is essential for the industry to survive on its merits. They are having the chance because the industry, and I say this with great regret, is becoming almost a monopoly. Already the Icelandic landings have been cut out. That cannot go on for ever because it is a phase of our economic life that cannot give us any pride or pleasure to see our old friends in Iceland cut out.
I shall get some nasty looks from my friends in the fishing world when I meet them, but we must not envisage this industry being entirely without competition. I hope that the day is coming when they will be able to raise their standard of production and standard of salesmanship. I hope that the authority, which is doing a creditable job of salesmanship, will be able to put them on the right line.

Mr. Duthie: I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is as much fish coming to this country from offshore Icelandic waters as came from the inshore.

Mr. Evans: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that, because it is a terrible criticism of the action of those in the industry who imposed the ban to say that the results of the conservation measures which the Icelanders are taking—measures which we ourselves have done so much to foster in our own waters—are becoming apparent. The quality taken from the waters adjacent to Iceland is better than ever before. I hope that I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point correctly. That is my point of view.
The disabilities of the industry have to be sympathetically considered by the consuming public. We are always hearing about the high price of fish. We have been hearing a great deal recently about the high price of meat. Fish is in competition with unrationed meat, with large quantities of good vegetables at this time of year, with an influx of eggs, and so on. With the increased cost of the operations of catching I submit that it is wrong to suggest that fish is extraordinarily or unduly dear. It is a hazardous occupation and the costs are enormous.
The standard of life of the fishermen has been increased—without that we shall

not get the recruitment that the industry needs. Anything that the Minister does to rehabilitate the industry, to sustain, help and encourage it while not spoiling it—we do not want any industry to be spoiled or pampered—will be welcomed. I believe that this amount, although it disappoints the fishing industry itself, will do a great deal to keep the vessels sailing, to help this great industry to prosper, and to provide, as is intended, sustenance and a safeguard in time of trouble.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has recognised the rise in costs which the industry has had to bear. I am glad, also, that the hazards and dangers through which those engaged in it have to pass have also been recognised. In following the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) I welcome the reference he has made to the amount of damage that was caused in this country to the industry by there having to be so much boxed cod landed during the war. He might also have mentioned the amount of "painted ladies" that also had to be eaten.
It is absolutely necessary to keep up the quality of the fish and there are only two points I wish to make to the Minister. The reference in page 4 of the Scheme is to vessels not exceeding 70 feet overall. Between now and the next Scheme I would like him to consider whether or not pollock should be included in the ungutted as well as the gutted section. He will no doubt already know that the cost of including that would be extremely small. If he turns to the fish landings for April, 1954, he will discover their value to be £4,124.
My other point is with regard to this question of quality and what we hope the White Fish Authority may be able to do to encourage the industry. The last thing we would really want to see is this industry running for ever on a subsidy. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would take into consideration what the fishing industry paper wrote this month. I think it is a matter which he should bear fully in mind, and I would like to read just a paragraph from what it said:
But we must add that if this junior Minister is now a fishery man he should be out and about in the future getting to know the


problems of the industry and speaking at trade functions up and down the country, and generally making himself known and liked, so that the industry have the feeling that their 'champion' is a full-timer. Even junior Ministers are busy. But we would like to see this particular fellow round the markets now and again discussing the industry's troubles and aspirations.
I sincerely trust that is what we shall see the Parliamentary Secretary doing in the future.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt the paean of praise and platitude with which this Scheme has been received. It has certain objectionable features to which I think I must draw attention. The Scheme is primarily designed to deal with the case of fishing vessels secretly elongated without notice to the Minister, for the purpose of fraudulently getting a grant. It imputes fraud and dishonesty to the owners of fishing vessels, to the fishermen and to the fishing community. Indeed, Article 10 actually deals with the penalties which may be imposed for the frauds which are contemplated by the Scheme.
So, without further explanation, the Scheme seems not only quite unnecessary, but undesirable. We have only to look at the last sentence in the Explanatory Note to see that that is so. It puts the matter very succinctly, and more clearly than I can put it:
The conditions under which the grants may be paid remain the same as those under the previous Scheme, save for a provision that when a structural alteration is made to any vessel which increases its length grant may be paid at the rate appropriate to the original length of the vessel, unless, previous to the alteration, the appropriate Minister has otherwise agreed.
Obviously the intention of this Scheme is to deal with owners and fishermen who would fraudulently seek to elongate secretly their boats, and then get grants accordingly. No one had thought fit, not even the former Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, to refer to these very objectionable features and it is my duty, in the interests of the fishing community, to draw attention to them.
This Scheme seeks to supersede or amend the Scheme of last year, which was entitled the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1953. The purpose of that scheme last year was to implement Section 5 of the White Fish

and Herring Industry Act, 1953. It did that well and in a workmanlike way, without imputing improper motives of fraud to either owners or fishermen.
Section 5 follows the principle of the present Tory Government, which is this: when it wants to be constructive it copies the earlier legislation of the Labour Government, but slightly alters the words, and when it wants to be destructive it reverses the process by putting in a "not" here and there, and by changing a positive into a negative, or a negative into a positive, or, as here, by wasting time and energy by putting in a preposterous provision about "without notice, lengthening the size of a registered fishing vessel in respect of which a grant is paid."
To understand the fantastic folly of what is being done it is necessary to realise that the Act out of which this Scheme flows is one of a series of Acts, some of which were passed by the Labour Government and one of which was passed by the present Government. The series was instituted and developed by earlier Governments, and it worked well in those days. I do not propose to elaborate the series—I see that you are getting restless, Mr. Speaker—and I shall deal with this Scheme.
The purpose of the Act now in question was to promote the landing of a continuous and plentiful supply of white fish, and to encourage the fishermen by making grants, such as those contemplated by this Scheme, to owners and fishermen of vessels not exceeding 140 feet in length, subject to conditions set out in the scheme. A scheme was made last year, which scheme it is now sought to amend, for the payment of grants in respect of voyages made and fish landed by vessels fishing the near and middle water grounds, and for grants in respect of landings of fish by inshore vessels during the period from 1st August, 1953. to 31st July, 1955.
That was all clear, open and above board, and no amendment was necessary. In my submission, no amendment is now necessary, unless it is intended to take away some of the rights of owners and fishermen, or to complicate their affairs and reduce their opportunities, or to make their lives more difficult by imputing to them, as this Scheme does,


dishonesty and fraud. I invite the House to see what is the effect of this Scheme, and how unnecessary it is.
It provides all the same kinds of things as the previous scheme did—except one. It provides for vessels fishing the near and middle water grounds, as did the previous scheme; it provides for inshore fishing vessels, as did the previous scheme; it provides for the period up to 31st July, 1955, as did the previous scheme; and it provides conditions and grants to promote landings, as did the previous scheme. The one difference is that to which I have referred, that where structural alteration is made to any vessel to increase its length,
grants may be paid at the rate appropriate to the length of the vessel before the alteration was carried out, unless the appropriate Minister has previously agreed in writing to pay at the rate appropriate to the length of the vessel after the alteration was carried out.
That is an imputation, of dishonesty against the owner and the fisherman—an imputation of an attempt to get a grant without giving notice to the Minister that this elastic boat had been elongated.
I submit that this Scheme is worse than circumlocution; it is designed to enhance the powers of the Minister, to give trouble to the owner and the fisherman, to increase the red tape, to embarrass the fishing industry and thereby to reduce the supplies of fish. Everything remains the same except this suppositious attempt on the part of the dishonest fisherman to elongate his elastic boat. As everything remains the same except for this fantastic idea of elongating an elastic boat, the Scheme is unnecessary.

Mr. Edward Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that everything is the same. Does he consider an additional grant of a quarter of a million pounds can be ignored by the fishing industry?

Mr. Hughes: I will put my answer in the succinct words of the Explanatory Note, which, in its last sentence, says:
The conditions under which the grants may be made remain the same as those under the previous Scheme…

Mr. Speaker: That is the third time that the hon. and learned Member has read that.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) spoke of monotonous diet. It would help to relieve that diet if more people were encouraged to eat shellfish. We are told that
This Scheme, which may be cited as the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1954, shall apply to the United Kingdom, and shall come into operation on the 1st day of August, 1954.
We are also told that
'Gross proceeds' means the proceeds from the first-hand sale of all fish (including herring, salmon, migratory trout and shellfish)…
As I understand, shellfish do not come into the subsidy. Is it too late to ask that this shall be reconsidered? Something has been said tonight about the cost of gear and the cost of the operations of fishermen. Those same costs apply to those who fish for shellfish. I do not see why they should not get a grant under the Scheme.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft mentioned the Icelandic fishing dispute. One thing to be remembered so far as inshore fishermen are concerned is that this dispute—apart from the fact that the catches have gone up in the waters around Iceland since the expansion of territorial waters—means that we must take care to produce good quality fish so that we can compete with the frozen fish sent here from Iceland. At the same time, it is unfair that our fishermen should abide by the net rules set by the Over-fishing Convention when Belgians and Frenchmen can come in to our ports having used nets which do not conform to the international Convention, and nothing be done about it. Her Majesty's Government should consult the Governments concerned to ensure that pressure is brought to bear upon the fishermen of those nations to use the proper size of mesh.
I would emphasise what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) said about the Minister. I hope that as a result of our recent debate the remarks made in the fishing Press about the Minister will be noted.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be answering questions on fisheries at the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will be able to visit the fishing ports and to meet the


men in the industry. It is important that the fishing industry should know that there is one Minister who will identify himself particularly with the needs of the industry.

Mr. Edward Evans: If the hon. Member is so keen on having a Minister to show himself to all the fishermen in the fishing ports, why did he and his hon. Friend withdraw the Bill presented to the House to set up a Parliamentary Secretary who would be solely responsible for fisheries? Will he and his hon. Friends now support the Bill, which I have introduced, to establish a Parliamentary Secretary to be responsible for fisheries?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now going very wide of the Scheme.

Mr. Howard: I would only say—my remarks have been to this end—that we hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will show sufficient interest in the fishing industry to make it apparent that he is doing the job that we all wish done for the fishing industry.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I cannot follow the line adopted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) about boats being elongated secretly or otherwise, but I hope that the same procedure is not tried out on the fish. I am, however, worried about the way in which nets are being elongated, which is unfair to our own people.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the new Overfishing Convention. I think I can claim to have played some part in getting the Convention agreed to and in getting Belgium and Iceland to sign it. I am certain that all hon. Members would like to give it a fair trial, but we can only do that if all the countries which have signed the agreement abide by the rules.
We might as well be frank about the matter. Fishermen all over the country, and certainly those fishing from Granton and Newhaven in my constituency, are complaining about fishermen from other countries using nets in the North Sea which are not of the sizes laid down in the Convention. If our people are to use the proper nets, it is only right that other countries should follow suit.
Not only do we depend on a good supply of fish, but the livelihood of the fishing communities of all countries is bound up with the preservation of the fish life in the sea. If people over-fish, we shall ultimately reach a stage when we shall put people out of employment altogether and destroy a very valuable food supply for the rest of the world.
Let us remember that the scheme will give some assistance to the industry. I do not complain about the safeguards which have been provided. Any Government would have to provide certain safeguards if they were to pay out public money. Let us be fair and say that the scheme will provide an extra £250.000.
That is the reason for the quarrel between the owners and the Minister. The owners feel that they have not got enough out of the scheme. Indeed, in these days of rising costs they are entitled to ask for some measures to be taken to make certain that they can carry on the industry. Trawler owners have told me that if they could get their coal at the price at which many other industries are being supplied they would not want £250,000 from the Ministry. Fuel has gone up tremendously during the last 12 months, as indeed have many other items.
What the industry asks is that it be given a subsidy sufficient to allow it to carry on until it is reorganised. But I do not think the Minister should think that this is the last of the matter. Let us be frank also about the progress made under the White Fish Authority. We expected something more. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply, or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but, to give one example.
I led a deputation to the Scottish Office last December about the white fish industry which made some proposals with regard to the disposal of white fish, especially that portion that was not sold for human consumption. The Minister said to the Authority that here were the proposals of this section of the industry, and asked them to get on quickly and let him have a reply. I saw the Joint Under-Secretary in January, and he told me he had not got a reply. I am not blaming him. I only got a final reply on the 15th of this month, seven months after the matter was first raised, and I cannot


absolve the White Fish Authority from blame.
If the industry is to be reorganised, we have to have greater attention from the Authority which was created to deal with these very problems—not only fish oil but fish meal, which, indeed, could play a very valuable part in bringing back prosperity to the white fish industry. When one thinks of the tremendous sums of money expended on the purchase of fish meal—in 1952 over £1,250,000—from other countries for our agricultural industry, one would have thought the Authority could have shown greater efficiency and drive in finding a solution.
We should not be misled by the figures of new boats under construction or being built. The Parliamentary Secretary thought on the whole they were fairly satisfactory. I am certain that on reflection he would like to amend that statement, because while the numbers may be better than they have been, they have to be placed against the out-of-date condition of such a large number of boats in the industry. When we measure this little progress, let us always remember the long road there is still to travel to reorganise and make the industry prosperous.
Here is an industry which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) said, is the fifth largest in the country. It is an industry which makes a tremendous contribution not only in time of peace but in war-time, because it is from that industry that we draw a great deal of our naval strength. So it is essential in peace or war that this industry, and all who are in it, should have the best attention of this House, and while we may pass this Scheme which may bring a little succour to it, I hope in the not too far distant future we shall have greater proposals for reorganising the industry and putting it on its feet again without having always to induct subsidies merely to keep it alive.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: It would seem strange to discuss fish and for no one to speak for Grimsby or Humber ports, as about 70 per cent. of the fish landed come to the Humber ports. As

there is no one else to speak for the southern side of the river, I should like to speak for the trawler owners and men affected by this Scheme who live in my constituency. They are grateful for whatever is done to help them. The Parliamentary Secretary has been invited to go round the various ports, and I hope he will not spend all his time in the smaller ports and overlook the two that matter. At present in the white fish industry there is a great deal in Grimsby that causes people disquiet. There has been a lot of discussion in the local Press recently about the difficulties with which the industry is faced. These proposals will help in a small degree, but they will not touch some of the more basic problems that face this oldest fishing port in the country.
I extend to my hon. Friend a strong invitation, if he can possibly find time, to come up and see the industry for himself. I undertake that if he comes he will be shown all sides of the industry, and I hope he will give an undertaking that when he comes back he will do his best to see that remedies are applied to what he has learnt.

11.21 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will have noted the kind invitation extended to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). There is very little that I need say except to answer one or two points. It is good to feel that although this is a moderate measure, by no means giving to the industry anything like all it asked, nevertheless it has, with the single exception of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), won universal approval from the House.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), as did others, raised, naturally enough, the question of Iceland. We are all concerned, and will continue to be concerned, about the unhappy problem there. All I would say about it is that we are ready at any time to discuss conservation measures with Iceland. But we quite understand in the House that the fishing industry finds it rather difficult to agree to measures unilaterally imposed. That is the difficulty, and I am afraid it may continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) asked me about Pollack. We will look at the point he has put to us. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, had prepared his speech without looking at the Scheme. It would not be proper at this time of night to try to enter into a conflict with him. I merely beg the hon. and learned Member, politely but firmly, to go home tonight and, for the first time, read the Scheme, and he will find all his questions answered. If he is still left in any difficulty, particularly about the question of lengthening of vessels, I will give him precise particulars of a case which made it essential that we should introduce this new provision in the Scheme. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member, being a legal luminary and having obtained this information, will be the first to get up on the next occasion and say what splendid fellows we are on the Government Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) was, as usual, gallant and loyal to his shellfish, and raised the local problem. The trouble is that shellfish were excluded by the Act, and it is difficult for us, unless we were to alter the Act, to overcome that difficulty. But no doubt my hon. Friend will go on fighting for the shellfish, and perhaps in due course something will happen.
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), like other hon. Members, referred to the international Convention, in the making of which we all recognise the very important part which he played abroad. The hon. Member has, therefore, every right to talk to the House upon this matter. Everything depends on how the other countries play the game. If they did not play the game, there would not be much sense in the convention; but each country is obliged to see that its nationals abide by its law, and it is up to each signatory to enforce the convention in that way. But all signatories are obliged to report to the Permanent Commission next year on the measures they have taken to enforce the convention, and it will then be open to any of us to make such representations as we want to make.
The hon. Gentleman raised a matter with me some months ago when he brought some of his trawler constituents to see me in Edinburgh. The point raised was a reasonable one. It was suggested that there was a surplus of white fish which could not be sold on the fresh market, and which had a depressing effect on the home market, and we were asked whether we could not do something about it. The White Fish Authority examined this matter at my request; so did we. After the most careful consideration, the Government came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to pay the subsidy for fish which was not being used for human consumption. That is the difficulty in which we are placed, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate it.
The best answer I can give is that we have taken two measures to deal with this surplus, very often of small fish. We have introduced the larger mesh provisions which will have the effect of reducing the amount of small fish caught. We have also introduced the Sea Fish Industry (Immature Fish) Order, which has the effect of increasing the minimum size of whiting to 10 inches. No whiting of less than 10 inches can now be sold. That should have an effect on the splendid men from Granton and that part of the world. I hope that these few remarks have answered the questions put.

Mr. Howard: Would my hon. Friend say, on the subject of the measures taken about the size of the mesh, whether Fishery Protection vessels have the right to inspect the mesh, and can he give publicity to that so that fishermen will know they can be prosecuted for an offence.

Mr. Stewart: The Fishery Protection vessels have a function as the hon. Gentleman knows, and they can examine our own vessels and apply measures to them, and likewise other countries can take similar action against their vessels.

Resolved,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1954, dated 13th July, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.

REQUISITIONED LAND, PEACEHAVEN

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Last week we discussed the case of Crichel Down. Tonight I want to deal with the case of Peacehaven, an area of land on the South coast of Sussex. I believe that this case has in it all the principles which apply to the case of Crichel Down and require the justice required in that case, and possibly more so. The constituent of mine, whose land is being threatened, has not the means nor the money that Commander Marten had. She has no other assets than the one-fifteenth of an acre which the Ministry is proposing to take away from her.
The history of the case briefly is that in 1916 a large area of the South Downs was split up for building purposes, and was sold, or given away as prizes in some cases, for development. It was as a prize that my constituent got her small parcel of land. It was requisitioned during the 1914–18 war, and was not handed back in the state it was taken over. My constituent's land was not developed between the wars, although a large number of plots of lands were developed and are now built on. In 1940, the war agricultural committee requisitioned this land. Miss Walker, my constituent, did not know of this, and only found out some time later when visiting it. She thought she would get it back when the emergency was over.
Under the Act of 1947, the then Minister of Agriculture in the Socialist Government decided to take away the freehold of this land from my constituent, Miss Walker, together with that of other owners in the area. This decision was in order that this small plot should continue to be farmed and food be produced. Throughout the whole of these proceedings there has been no suggestion that food should not be produced on the land, if that can be done. The objection is that a Minister or the State should take the freehold away in order to do so.
These matters have been put to the Ministry and to Ministers over a number

of years. In 1948, 1950, 1951 and 1952 at least 14 hon. Members have, at one time or another, taken the matter up with the Minister and at least two Parliamentary Questions have been asked about it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), in whose constituency this case is, has been most active in pressing the Minister on it. I would quote from a letter which he sent. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, who has been ill, will soon be back again with us here. He wrote:
I do feel very strongly indeed that the owners of these plots have been treated in a most high-handed fashion—although, admittedly, within the law "—
I will query that point later on—
I particularly hope that in your review of this case you will bear in mind the large number of plot owners who would be affected if this compulsory purchase order is proceeded with.
This has been done to a large number of these plot-owners for whom we are speaking.
I have written to the Parliamentary Secretary on a number of occasions on behalf of my constituent. The latest letter I had from him was dated 13th July this year, in which he decided finally not to go back on the decision which was taken that my constituent must lose her freehold. This is the reason why I am raising the matter before the House tonight. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the words of the Home Secretary in the debate last week. They sum up the point which I am putting to him now. The Home Secretary said:
Every citizen of good will sees his land go in time of emergency for Government requirements with as much good will as he can muster; but it is taken for a specific purpose, for a specific need of the State. When that purpose is exhausted, when that need is past, what is wrong, on any consideration of morality or justice, in allowing the person from whom the land was taken to have the chance of getting it back?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1296.]
That is exactly the point I wish to press upon the Parliamentary Secretary.
As I understand the matter, the Parliamentary Secretary has produced two arguments. The first is that a tribunal was held in October, 1951 under the Agriculture Act and decided that the Minister should take the land; therefore the Ministry must stand by that decision. The second argument is that under the


Town and Country Planning Act the land cannot be developed, and therefore the State must take it over. On the first argument, the tribunal was a similar sort of tribunal as was remarked upon by Mr. Justice Stable recently in the case of a Mrs. Woollett. From discussions which I have had recently, I am not satisfied that the tribunal in 1951 was properly set up by the instructions of the Minister. It was at the time of the General Election and it is quite doubtful if the strictures of Mr. Justice Stable would not also apply in this case.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure me tonight, or, if he cannot do that, will look carefully into the matter to see what the facts are in this case, because there is a good deal of disturbance. I would quote to the Parliamentary Secretary a very forcible leading article in the "Daily Express" last week, in which they say:
Coupled with Crichel Down, the story of Mrs. Woollett's four acres builds up to a shocking picture of official casualness towards a citizen's rights. Muddle, delay, and injustice seem to be general.
I believe that applies to the case of my constituent.
I have a growing suspicion about whether the notice was properly given. I understand Saltdean Estates Limited, one of the local estate companies down there, stated that they had the names and addresses of the owners of this land. So far as I know, the officials dealing with the matter did not take up their offer of these names and addresses. I believe that where the freehold rights have been taken away it is the duty of those doing it to take every reasonable step to see these people are notified. I believe that was not done.
Notices were placed upon the land, and I understand that under the Act notices would have to be placed on every plot. I understand the figure of 4,000 has been mentioned as the number of plots. My information is that notices were not placed on each plot. It may be that a number of these notices themselves were bad. I feel, while the case of this tribunal may be looked at again, my constituent cannot accept it without some degree of qualm.
The second argument is one of development. As I understand the Minister's letters to me and to other hon.
Members, his argument is that at the moment the land cannot be developed under the plan for this area under the Town and Country Planning Act. He did not mention in a recent letter, nor say at any time, that under the Town and Country Planning Act there could be a five-year review of these development rights. Whether or not this land could be developed in five years' time, I do not know, and I do not think even the Minister could tell. Therefore, the argument that he must acquire the freehold, because the land cannot be developed, is definitely misleading, because it may be that in five or 10 years the land could be developed.
The crux of the point is that it seems to be wholly unnecessary for the State to take the freehold of land, whether it can be developed or whether it cannot, in order to produce food. I believe that my constituent and a large number of others on these plots are willing, and have always been willing, for their land to be farmed. I know that food production should be kept to a maximum, and I am not putting forward any suggestion that there is no need for food. What I cannot understand is why our Conservative Government should say that in order to produce food the State should own the property.
I can quite well understand hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who introduced this general idea in 1947 and 1948, saying that according to their philosophy there should be nationalisation of the land. I cannot believe that that is the true Conservative line. Where do we get to if we follow that line of thought? Here is a case where my constituent's land is admittedly only one-fifteenth of an acre and the war executive agricultural committee say, "It is too small to be farmed by itself. It must be bought out and put into a bigger plot." But sooner or later someone may come and say that two acres is too small—or four, or 10 or 20 acres is too small. Where do we stop with this principle that where, in the opinion of the Ministry, the land is too small it can be bought and added to other farms? Where do we stop? I think this principle that the State can perfectly well arrange for agricultural production without acquiring the freehold of the estate must be stopped.
I wish finally to quote to the House the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) —the Minister of Agriculture, as I imagine he still is at the moment. I believe that what he said in the closing remarks of his speech last week may very well influence not only my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary but any Minister coming after him. The words used were:
"…and it is our policy progressively to get rid of emergency powers which permit private interests in land to be overridden. With this freeing of the economy, and the material improvement in the food situation today, it is possible to contemplate taking action in the interests of liberty…
I stress that—
and free enterprise which the national economic situation would not have permitted two or three years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1187.]
That I believe to be the most important statement to be made from that Box last week. It gives me hope that in this case a large number of small plot-holders at Peacehaven will have a review of their case, and may find that at some future date it will be possible for them to have their freehold land back again.
I would ask my hon. Friend three sets of questions. If he can answer them satisfactorily—and I very much hope that he can, because they are not very difficult to answer—I shall be quite satisfied with the way the debate has gone. First, is he satisfied that the tribunal set up in October, 1951, by his Socialist predecessors was properly set up? Is he satisfied that the notices given for that tribunal to be held were properly served upon the owners of the various plots of land? If he is not satisfied, will he look carefully into it, reconsider the whole question and let me have the results of his search?
Secondly, can he give an undertaking that there will be, so to speak, a standstill order upon the processes which are now going forward for the acquiring of this land until the new Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, will have had time to consider the matter thoroughly As I understand it, as at the present moment negotiations are going on for the compulsory purchase. So far as I know they may be going on today or tomorrow. I think that it

would be very sad and most unfortunate if, this week or next, action were taken which might make it difficult for the Minister to reconsider the matter in the future.
Thirdly, will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary use his best endeavours to impress upon the Minister, when he is appointed, and on the officials who serve him, to accept the two points of principle which I have quoted from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and also of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Richmond? I believe that if those points of principle are accepted by the Ministry and by himself, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the freehold rights of this innumerable number of plot-holders will be preserved. The time has come when the conditions which prompted him and his predecessors have changed; that now we feel that the liberty of the individual is more important, and that the necessity to produce food can be met by some other method.
My constituent is willing for the land to be farmed, so long as it cannot be developed, and willing to allow what arrangements the Minister thinks necessary to do that. There is no question of the land going derelict as far as she is concerned, but she wants to preserve the right to maintain the freehold if, at some future date, it becomes possible to develop it, so that she can either build a house herself or make arrangements for someone else to do so.
I believe that I am speaking not only on behalf of my constituent but also for a large number of other people in the same position in this large area at Peace-haven. If my hon. Friend can give a satisfactory answer to this question, I am certain that he will lift a burden of anxiety from those people. He will be showing that the principles of liberty and the rights of property are still of vital importance to hon. Members who sit on this side of the House, whatever may be the views of those who sit on the other side. I believe he will go a long way, if he will give those satisfactory replies, to assuring us and the public generally that we really mean now to protect the rights of the small individual, so far as property is concerned, against those who feel it is in the national interest to nationalise the land and for the State to


buy up these areas. I hope, therefore, that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me a satisfactory answer, and I assure him that he has, and will have, the goodwill of all these people in that area.

11.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I would briefly confirm the description that my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) has made of the circumstances of this land, that it was in fact acquired in 1916, a small area of about one-fifteenth of an acre, that it was requisitioned in World War I, and farmed by the authorities. It stood idle, derelict and undeveloped between the two wars, and was requisitioned again in World War II, farmed again by the authorities—this time by the Ministry of Agriculture, through their agents, the East Sussex War Agricultural Committee. It is still under requisition by the Ministry of Agriculture and has been farmed more recently by being let to neighbouring farmers who have got it in production. I should say that it is part of a very much larger area. A total of some 2,000 acres was under this requisition, and rather more than half of it has been, or is being, derequisitioned and returned to its previous owners.
Their remains, however, an area of about 890 acres which it is at present proposed to purchase, if possible by agreement on price, by the exercise of compulsory powers. The difficulty that my right hon. Friend had to face, and, indeed, has to be faced by anyone who is Minister of Agriculture, was to discharge his responsibility of keeping in production land which is productive at the present time and potentially productive for the future, and to find a proper balance between the necessities of full production on the one hand and private ownership on the other.
There is this point that has to be considered in this particular area, and my hon. Friend has made reference to it, and that is the bearing of the planning authorities in their intentions for this particular land.
At the present time this land is scheduled to remain as agricultural land. It is true that the county plan is susceptible to review every five years but, in determining whether or not it is likely

to be amended, we can but consult the planning authorities in the neighbourhood and ask what is their intention for this area. They have informed us that they do not intend that this area shall be developed for building purposes. As is quite clear from the figures, they have allowed development on over a thousand acres of that land which was originally requisitioned, and they evidently consider that that is enough to meet the needs of the neighbourhood. Although I cannot rule out the possibility of this land being developed, I can say that on the best opinion we can get the present view is that it will not be developed.
If it were to be developed it would be developed for building purposes, and there would be no question about maintaining the requisition, or the Minister of Agriculture wishing to retain control; but when land is not going to be developed for building purposes, there is a clear duty upon the Minister of Agriculture to see that the land is capable of being kept in production.
My hon. Friend really must face the practical necessities of the position. He talks freely about the land being kept in production without an acquisition of the freehold, but, as I have said, with four large pieces of land fragmented into the ownership of hundreds of different owners—as is the case here—and the individual plots being so small, the problem of keeping the land in production in its individual pieces is overwhelmingly difficult. How is the State or any private individual to hire that land by tenancy from the individual owners, if the land is left with them? At present it is simple; the Government, and the Minister of Agriculture specifically, have requisitioning powers under Defence Regulations, so that there can be compulsory occupation. Those powers expire in a few years' time, at the most, and then there is the problem of keeping the land in production in the future. Some of this land is very good, and is commanding, as bare land, £3 an acre. We really cannot contemplate 800 acres going back into the condition in which it was between the wars. Those are considerations that my right hon. Friend and myself had to bear in mind in coming to the decision to go ahead with the purchase of the land. In the majority of cases purchase has been achieved by agreement as to price.
With regard to the point made about the tribunal, I should remind my hon. Friend that Miss Walker did not appeal to the tribunal. She decided it would not serve her interests to do so.

Mr. P. Roberts: Miss Walker states that she has always objected to that allegation. She was inundated with a lot of forms which she did not understand, and she may have omitted to do something, or she may have done something she ought not to have done, but she has always been adamant that she did not want to lose her land.

Mr. Nugent: I can only give my hon. Friend the facts. While he may perfectly well maintain the view of Miss Walker, the facts are that on 19th June, 1951, she was served with a notice that the Minister proposed to give the certificate, and that she might appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. On 11th July, 1951, she replied saying that it would be useless to appeal against the proposal to purchase her land compulsorily, and she requested that compensation should be assessed at the market value of building land. The fact is that she did not appeal to the tribunal. Therefore, the Woollett judgment has no great bearing, and possibly it has no direct bearing at all, on this case. So I can clear my hon. Friend's mind on that point at least.
With regard to the serving of the notices, it is clear that notices were served on Miss Walker, and that notice was given in the proper fashion. I assure my hon. Friend that, as far as I can make out from the records, the serving of notices in this difficult matter has been done with all the care that humanity could command. More than 800 owners have been contacted, many of them having done nothing with the land for 20 or 30 years. It has been difficult to trace them. The land was in plots which some people had acquired for nothing, or won as a prize, or gained in some other way. An enormous job has been undertaken in contacting these owners. Where they have not been contacted, notices have been posted on the land.
The third question asked by my hon. Friend was whether the new Minister of Agriculture will accept the principles laid down by the Home Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale). The answer is that they certainly will. At the same time, there is the need to maintain full food production. While I am certain that the new Minister of Agriculture will wish to examine in detail this complicated and difficult case, I cannot commit him on the view he will take. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the general responsibility which the Minister of Agriculture must have. He cannot lightly say that his land can go back to the owners. Obviously, it would be practically impossible to maintain it in production, and the probability is that it would go back to the derelict condition in which it was in for more than 20 years between the wars, with potentially good land producing nothing.

Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that wherever there is derelict land the State must buy it?

Mr. Nugent: I do not. I resent my hon. Friend's imputing that motive to me. He knows as well as I do that if land is in one ownership it is possible for that owner to equip and farm it in the proper way; but here we have land in small pieces. He knows, as well as I do, that it is not possible to negotiate 700 or 800 leases. We must look at this practically.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Surely the Ministry has a responsibility in regard to the rights of individuals to deal with their own land. This is a shocking argument. You ought to be ashamed of it.

Mr. Nugent: I will conclude by asking my hon. Friend to observe the facts. When the future Minister of Agriculture is appointed he will have these facts before him—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.